Wednesday, November 08, 2006

What is "Public?" (Correspondence, Part 4)

This is Part 4 of our series on correspondence between Landis and the USADA. In Part 1, we heard USADA wasn't providing any more documents than Landis already had; In Part 2, we learned what Landis had been asking for. In Part 3, we saw an abortive attempt to turn this into a one-step proceeding, with a single hearing directly before CAS. This was rejected by USADA, even though it was their idea. Why?

One of the things that may have scared USADA off from having a single CAS proceeding was Landis's condition that it be a public hearing, just as the AAA step would be. If the purpose of the idea to go to a single CAS hearing was to consolidate process and save time, that ought to have been acceptable. If on the other hand, the idea was to eliminate the public hearing, then it didn't work.

It may also be that some other party, CAS, UCI, or WADA really didn't want the final decision to be made in a public hearing. Or it may be that CAS has policy that simply cannot be bent to allow for the rules, process or public conditions made by Landis - but we haven't heard a suggestion that this is the case.

How were discussions on the AAA public hearing going?



We should recall that USADA got the demand for a public hearing on 29-Sep, and the AAA rule that allowed such a demand has been in place for a number of years. It might be reasonable to expect an agency involved in such disputes to have done some planning for the situation, and to have an outline available for the way it would like a public hearing to be conducted.

Click on a page image to see the original document.

On 4-October, USADA sends a letter to AAA and Landis proposing Malibu as the hearing location, with no stated reservations. It does not mention the public hearing demand, except by reference by attachment of the Landis 26-Sep letter.

On 5-October, AAA responds, starting the process, noting (as the entirety of paragraph four) that,
Claimant agrees with Respondent's request to conduct the evidentiary hearing in Malibu California.
Comment: USADA does not directly respond to this letter suggesting it is in error or has misinterpreted the letter of 4-Oct. October 5 was Thursday, and the next letter on 10-Oct was Tuesday, so USADA had a Friday and a Monday to complain, but did not.

On 10-October, the AAA sends another letter to USADA and Landis. It states clearly that it believes both parties have agreed to have a public hearing in Malibu, as proposed by Landis and passed on in the 4-Oct letter from USADA. The AAA letter requests both sides to supply "contentions" by 17-Oct that need to be addressed. It begins (emphasis added):

Whereas the parties have agreed to conduct the hearing in Malibu, California, the Association must comply with the California Statutory Laws governing arbitration in that State.

Comment: perfectly reasonable sounding letter, give us your complaints and we'll look at them.

In the meantime, on 16-Oct, Landis sends the document demands discussed in part 2, and the conditions for a single CAS hearing discussed in part 3.

On 17-Oct, USADA sends a letter to AAA at 14:03, saying that it hasn't agreed to anything, merely that it did not object to the proposed location in its 4-Oct letter.

It doesn't feel it has anything to respond to. Regarding the matter of being open to the public, USADA expresses "concern" that the hearing be held in a fair and reasonable manner. It then asks,
What does "public" mean exactly?
and various other details are questioned. Does Malibu have hotels, and Pepperdine have fax machines and copiers?

It raises two topics it considers truly important: What about the confidentiality gag-order on us, and is the public going to actually see correspondence, briefs, exhibits and discovery information?

It is therefore "premature for us to agree or not agree".

Comment: USADA offers no plan of its own. This is an impressive display of ducking the issues. USADA has apparently never heard of a public hearing, though it is in the rules, and they were put on notice in the 29-Sep letter. "What does 'public' mean" has got to be one of the sourest notes in a legal context since Clinton's, "It depends on what 'is' is."

Later on 17 Oct, Landis sends a four page letter to AAA which in part answers items raised by USADA in its letter from earlier in the day, and carries a large dose of attitude.

It says that the parties agreed to Malibu in a joint request, and that is not at issue. If then offers to address some of USADA's points, noting sarcastically much of the information could have been obtained with a "simple internet search" if USADA had cared to look.

Regarding an open public hearing, it notes conversations where USADA had admitted "not wanting a circus". Landis then reviews the rules and thinks the phrase "shall be open to the public," is unambiguous, and insists the parties already agreed on this point.

Landis agrees with the goal of a "fair and reasonable" manner for the hearing, and wants it as open as possible (a key phrase), leaving arbitrators to decide details subject to the general agreement to an open hearing.

Landis thinks the meaning of "public" need not be defined -- it is what is meant by the AAA Supplemental Rules, subject to space limitations. It snarkily notes the idea of a public hearing is neither a new nor novel concept, and that arbitrators can follow the "extensive guidelines promulgated by the courts (samples of which are included as Exhibit 2)". Similarly, seating limitations can be addressed by the arbitrators.

On the confidentiality issues, Landis sees no problems. The hearing is public, and that is distinct from that covered by the public comment issue. The arbitrators can decide about public access to documents.

Regarding the Pepperdine facility, Landis points USADA to the web site, provides links to hotel page at the site, and lists a few. It identifies facilities available, including a 160 seat trial room, and a 350 seat mock-appellate court, and says the school has plenty of fax and copy machines. Several times it asserts this is better accommodation than traditional for ADA related hearings.

Finally, addressing the "circus" comment made by USADA, Landis notes Pepperdine Law has security guards at the access points.

Comment: There is a lot of sarcasm in this letter. Some of it is probably reaction to the astounding presentation of know-nothingness in the USADA letter, and some is likely to have been the venting of general frustration. I'm not familiar enough with legal writing to know where various lines of propriety may be, but I'd guess this is close to one.

Comment: As a matter of style, neither USADA nor Landis really meets the AAA request, which was to provide a list of contentions. A fastidious writer would have included a list specifically identified as "contentions". For example the document demand memo is full of lists and numbers, so Jacobs knows how to do it. Doing so makes the points explicit, and makes them easier to address in subsequent discussion. But these are all preliminary, scheduling matters that ought not be held to the rigor of pleadings. But then...

On 18-Oct, USADA complains Landis shouldn't have talked about the USADA letter sent earlier that day, and wants future exchanges to be coordinated by the clock to prevent Jacobs from modifying his submissions to answer things in one sent earlier.

USADA again denies having agreed to a public hearing, and repeats it is too early to address the issues.

Comment: other than speeding progress towards resolution of these planning issues, how did addressing concerns and questions raised in the USADA letter create a problem, or prejudice the case? Is the goal of the USADA in this letter to speed the process, or create delay? It comes off as pique.

On 19-Oct, USADA revisits "public hearing" with Landis. Referring to a phone conversation on the 18th with Jacobs, USADA wants a detailed proposal for the request. It says the process will work better if agreement is reached before seeking confirmation from the panel.

Comment: USADA offers no proposal of its own, even though the rule has been on the books for years, and they have known this was coming since 29-Sep.

On 23-Oct, reported in part 3, USADA tells AAA the single CAS hearing may still be on. They have not yet heard what a public hearing is, nor have they offered their own version for discussion.

Comment: They don't hate the idea of a public hearing so much they have written it off completely, yet. They're telling AAA it might happen. They've had the letter since the 16th with the conditions, so they must have been considering their options.

On 23-Oct, Landis sends a five page letter describing what an open hearing might look like.

Landis repeats the statement from 17-Oct letter that he wants the hearing as open as possible, and that the arbitrators can make decisions about what that means. What is proposed in this letter is open to discussion.
  • All disputes to be resolved by the panel Chair.
  • Landis wants to allow TV coverage, using fixed cameras and existing sound and light.
  • Press pool if more than one seeks to use a TV camera.
  • If no press wants to provide video, Landis will provide a single camera.
  • Seats distributed 20% to Pepperdine for education; 40% each to USADA and Landis to allocate as each sees fit.
  • Either party may distribute documents as it sees fit, how it sees fit.
  • Confidentiality of proceedings made irrelevant by public hearing;
  • No comment rule remains in effect, UNLESS...
Landis offers to waive the public comment prohibition if USADA produces all the documents from the 16-Oct request described in Part 2.

Comment: This lays a card on the table. It's unlikely that USADA will agree, but if it was accepted there wouldn't be any more discovery. That says everything Landis thinks he needs is covered by the 16-Oct request, and anything else he needs is already in his possession.

Further, this gives USADA some idea what the implications of 'public' really are -- what happens will be recorded and reported. What will their reaction be?

On 1-Nov, reported in part 3, USADA says no single CAS hearing.

Comment: As far as we know, nothing transpired other than USADA considering what 'public' means. They want none of it.

On 3-Nov, reported in part 1, USADA denies all document production.


The exchange here suggests the following:
  • USADA had not made any preparation for public hearings in the years following addition of the rule that allowed them;
  • USADA had not made any preparation for public hearing since the 29-Sep demand.
  • USADA does not want a public hearing.
  • USADA rejected having a single CAS hearing after Landis insisted it be public, even though it was their idea;
  • USADA isn't really interested in expediting the case, as evidenced by rejecting the single CAS hearing and complaining about quick turnaround to letters.
  • Landis believes he has a non-negotiable right to a public hearing.
  • Landis is willing to compromise on details, and will trade time and money (2 step process) to get his public hearing.
  • Landis has a procedural lever in the public comment rule, which he was willing to trade for document production and answers to interrogatories. That means the request must have been complete.
If someone wants to offer alternative theories explaining how this demonstrates Landis' malfeasance, and that USADA is doing everything honorably in a search for justice, please send mail or make comments.

In Part 5, we'll learn about the handling of other tests from the Tour.

Back to Part 3.

All documents presented in this series can be found in the collection at



Anonymous said...

First USADA denies Landis Documents. Now you deny us part 4. This is not a good precendent!!!

Anonymous said...

Good day from your anonymous fortune teller.

Just checking in to see how you took the news of Basso signing with Discovery. If I remember correctly I predicted this a few months ago.

The pro cycling world has a funny way of doing what it wants to do. To be in pro cycling means to be in a tight group, a brotherhood of sorts. The power is held by a few respected cyclists and a few respected team managers.

The federations are powerless bueraucracies. Just look at your very own USA Cycling gang. They are controlled by Discovery, in fact they're placed there by Discovery. Without Disco's support they couldn't do it.

You know what Landis' main problem is right now? He refused Disco all year prior to the Tour. They were courting him from the ToCalifornia on. He felt they had treated him badly. He felt he was too good for them. He felt he didn't need them.

Despite all the public support from Armstrong, Landis is in Disco's shit house. That's why they won't let him off. Signing Basso is the ultimate slap in the face for Landis. He had his chance.

The un-official policy in pro cycling is as I stated months ago: Landis used testosterone tainted blood bags from training and thus shot himself in the foot. The testo didn't help him win the stage, the blood did. But the testo will nail him. He is cocksure and convincing that he is innocent. Because blood doping cannot be proved. But it won't help him.

Pro cycling knows that is what happened, because that's how it is done.

Sending out documents to the public? Please. Nice pr attempt. These decisions are not made by the public, and they're not made in court or in comissions. They're made in discreet phonecalls by the powerful men in cycling. Bruyneel being one of the most powerful ones, the most successful team manager of the last few years and heavily connected into the incredibly powerful Belgian cycling maching (can you spell Merckx?).

The sport is run not by McQuaid and all those clowns. It's run by the old boy's mafia. Why do you think Sainz gets to keep his license? If he goes down, a lot of others will go down. That's the code of honor in pro cycling.

Look at Millar. Has he really talked about anyone else? No, he has talked about himself. Has Marzano talked about others? Yes he has. Look at where they are.

Ullrich on the other hand has zero support from his team or his country. Yes, Tinkoff wants to sign him, and so do a few other conti squads. But he has isolated himself over the years and there is no big team that wants him. That's why the dice have been cast long ago on him, just like on Basso and Landis.

Anonymous said...

Here's the problem with this theory.

First you cannot freeze whole blood, it damages the cells. You have to seperate it into RBC (red-blood cells) and Plasma. If he any T in his system, it would be in the plasma. There is no real benefit in injecting the plasma back into your system (but no reason not to do it). The RBC yes, but if seperated properly, it should have only tiny trace amounts of T, not enough to trigger a positive (assuming this is what happened). If it has more than tiny trace amounts, it means it wasn't seperated properly and the RBC would be damaged and do no good. If the RBC was no good, no benefit would have be dervived and he would have not won the stage (staying with this theory)

Second, infusions (transfusions are someone else's blood) take a while, like a few hours on an IV. It is not a five minute affair. In other words, it not easy and their is no clear cut science if the effect is immediate. It might take up to 24 hours for your system to adapt to the new RBC.

Thrid, T metbolizes fast - within a day. Meaning it gets absorbed from your blood into your cells (muscles). For this theoty to work, he would have had to not only inject the plasma, but it would have needed to be draw his own blood months earlier when he was training literally a few hours after he took T.

These drawbacks make this theory improbable.

Anonymous said...

Also, at best, you could replace maybe 10% of your blood between stages. That would mean the tainted blood would have had to be near 100 to 1 t/e ratio in order to have a 11 to 1 t/e ratio in his test.

Anonymous said...

AFT here,

In general, you are right about the RBCs. But the point is that the blood was cleaned badly. Part of the Landis defense is that only one out of four metabolites came back positive. This actually supports the theory that it came from a tainted blood bag, because only a few of the metabolites remained. And the testo that actually goes into building muscles is called "free" testo which is the stuff that does not bind to the blood plasma, but that is delivered - by the blood - to cell membranes as a messenger. In fact, the more binding capacity, the less free testosterone. Therefore, you try to keep binding capacity low (with insuline i.e.) and testo input high.

In training, you shoot up dianabol or anadrol to build muscle fibers over the course of a few weeks. It's done intramuscular to create a testo pouch from which a steady supply comes into the blood stream. Thus, you would not have to 'just' shot up to have a positive test. In fact, you are on a stacking phase for three weeks or so.

There are many many scenarios imaginable where blood could have been tainted with a left over metabolite that leads to a positive test. Globulins take on testo for transport and conservation. They may 'survive' a blood cleaning.

Blood infusions are done in virtually every race. Who will forget the Tour 2005 when the entire Disco team sucked in the Ardennes and the next day they came back with renewed vigor? Who will forget Hamilton's exploits after he had some races where he couldn't even stay with the pack? WHo could forget Landis in the Dauphine after he had donated to his own blood supply? You can raise doubts whether they work or not, but reality is reality.

Anonymous said...

sir, your theory cannot be supported scientifcally. metabolites in the blood? one of four? not cleaned properly?

I suggest sticking to CSI Miami, or doing actual research before you roll out un-scientific fiction like that.

Mr. Floyd was tired at the Dauphine because he was the most successful racer so far that year, winning the T of Cali, Paris-Nice & TdGeorgia. If he had won the Dauphine, there would have been more claims he was "DOPED" because he did not have a down race.

In any event, the poorly cleaned blood theory is bunk. The entire transfusion theory is junk. Next you'll tellus his bad day was because he didn't "DOPE" properly that day....

Anonymous said...

Okay. Whatever. Stick to your Floyd-is-clean belief. These are not my theories, but the ones which are favored inside pro cycling. Not by bloggers and blinded fans on the internet who read documents supplied by one party in the case. But by the people who know, because they're on the inside. Look at my old posts. I told you two months ago that Basso was going to get off. They knew right away. Just like they knew about Landis. Do you think anyone was surprised by the fact the he doped? They were surprised by the fact that got CAUGHT. 'Cause the US doping practices are among the most advanced in the world.

Burt Friggin' Hoovis said...

okay, Mr. Inside guy, what's your source?

Anonymous said...

You're forgetting the other point. At best you replace 10% of your RBC. To get a 11 to 1 t/e ratio, the tainted bloof had to be 110 to 1 t/e ratio.

He many have made a mistake, but he's not so stupid that he would draw blood when his t/e ratio is that high.

Anonymous said...

The documents support the argument that the USADA is more concerned with winning than discovering the truth. Very annoying. At this rate, it would appear that completing the hearing by February would be difficult.

Anonymous said...

As a "blinded fan on the internet", I'd really like to know how Disco,(Bruynell and Armstrong), are controlling the USADA and US Cycling? Why would they want to? That includes domestic cycling teams, college teams and my local cat 5 thru cat1. That just doesn't make sense to me. Disco wanted Landis gone in 2004, because he wanted to ask questions that Bruynell didn't want to answer. After what he did in the 2004 Tour, they didn't even offer a contract in a timely fashion, making it clear, he wasn't wanted. Too many waves....Floyd has not changed! If he was difficult to 'control' before, he still would be a thorn in Johan's side. He doesn't blindly follow anything, he wants logic and things to make sense. I'm sorry, Floyd is beyond saying ok, just because someone says "I say so!" He doesn't have that kind of personality. So, I really never understood why Disco wanted him back after everything they went through during his first tenure. Basso does not have Floyd's personality, and he was looking at joining disco before he decided to stay at CSC. Disco wanted him when he left Fasso Bortollo....

I'm off subject I know, and maybe showing my naive knowledge of the Pro Peleton and Teams. But, come on, Eddy Merckx and Axel, are good friends of Floyd's, and I'm sure he gets phone calls with advice and support.

And, another issue on Basso, in August everyone was sure if CSC and Basso didn't work out, he'd go to Discovery. That not news, once he was cleared by the Italian courts.
Marty Dugard said on his blog a few weeks ago, that Basso was going to Disco...and that's when all the coy press was still going on.
TBV, I guess I not getting it!

daniel m (a/k/a Rant) said...


Assuming I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying Landis blood doped and the traces of testosterone in the blood are what accounts for the CIR/IRMS findings. Correct?

You're not saying that the traces of synthetic testosterone in the blood bag account for the T/E ratio, are you? Because that part doesn't make sense to me. The T/E ratio was high because the E was extremely low, according to the lab pack that's been released.

I'm not sure I buy the blood doping theory, although anything is possible. But you're wrong that there are no tests to prove blood doping with one's own blood. There actually is a test that I've heard of that looks at the age of the blood cells and if any are found to be too old (beats me how they determine this), it's assumed the person doped.

Problem with the test is that it's difficult to perform and hard to interpret correctly (where have we heard that before?). At least, that 's my understanding. I don't think this test is certified by WADA or in use at the WADA-approved labs, otherwise we might see some people being busted for just what you claim.

Also, if the blood was improperly stored, it would be possible to find the damaged blood cells during analysis of a blood sample.

Then again, was Landis only asked for a urine sample after Stage 17, or did he supply a blood sample, too? From what I've seen, he only had to submit a urine sample, and you're not likely to detect blood doping from a urine test, I suspect. So either way, it may be that we'll never know if your claim is correct.

- Rant

Anonymous said...

The 4-page Landis response on October 17, the "attitude" letter appears to be incomplete. There is no signature on the 4th page. Does this mean that there is a missing 5th page?

Anonymous said...

@ Rant

Correct, there is a test (I believe there are several in development), but not certified and not used in anti-doping, so technically you can't get caught.
Landis submitted a urine sample after the stage. There would have been several blood tests during the Tour but not on that stage (most notably the hemo test the day before the prologue). And yes, the word in the community is that the testo traces made into the urine through a tainted blood bag as you described. What goes in must come out...

@ theresa

What's public is not always the full truth. Jim Ochowicz was the founder of the Motorola Team. He then became team coach at Discovery and is one of Lance's best friends. He now is President of USA Cycling. (he's been on the board since 96). "Och" can pull tons of strings.
Also on the board: Terry Lee who is in an investor in Tailwind Sports (which owns Discovery). Same goes for John Bucksbaum.
Also, money talks. There is a guy named Thom Weisel who is a millionaire cycling enthusiast. He backed Motorola and USPS and Discovery and the San Francisco GP. Jim Ochowicz is employed by his San Francisco company. Weisel has installed his former non-profit director Steve Johnson as the COO of USA Cycling. Let me quote:
"In 2000, the sporting team Weisel owned backed Armstrong as he won the Tour
de France for a second time. That same year, Weisel orchestrated the
equivalent of a leveraged buyout of the regulatory side of bicycle racing in
the United States. The U.S. Cycling Federation was suffering a $1.4 million
budget deficit, with no solvency in sight, when Weisel made the organization
an offer it couldn't refuse, according to an account from Weisel's
authorized biography. By helping to make the organization solvent, Weisel
was able to fill the board of directors with his friends and set up a
peculiar arrangement in which the bailout and future fundraising for the
renamed bike-racing regulator, USA Cycling, would be conducted through the
USA Cycling Development Foundation, a nonprofit that Weisel set up, staffed
with his friends, and led as president.

"Weisel spent over three years reorganizing USA Cycling, and his team is
largely in charge," the book explains.

In exchange for the bailout, Weisel demanded that his new nonprofit's
executive director, Steve Johnson, also be named chief operating officer of
USA Cycling, which is charged with participating in drug investigations and
handing out punishment. The president of USA Cycling is Jim Ochowicz, who is
also a broker at Weisel's current investment bank, Thomas Weisel Partners,
according to reports in Outside magazine, the Milwaukee Business Journal,
and other publications. Meanwhile, USA Cycling has a marketing arrangement
with Carmichael Training Systems, the company owned by Lance Armstrong's
coach, Chris Carmichael, through which USA Cycling does mass mailings on
Carmichael's behalf in exchange for discounts on coaching services for USA
Cycling members. " (

I can go on and on. HAven't even touched on Bruyneel... finbgers hurt...

@ burt

My sources are good and on the inside and revealign them would hurt them. ;) And then I'd have to kill ya.


Anonymous said...


I not following you. Please back up and say again.

What I see here is a bunch of rich cycling euthasiusts that have dedicated time and money tothe sport. Are they all inter-connected? Yes, but so are most people in related businesses, that why they are RELATED!

Are you saying this was done years ago in anticiaption of the Landis affair? Are you saying that because Landis and Disco egos rubbed each other the wrong way, these guys will, and can, screw Landis becauase to get even?

Ever heard of the phrase "nothing personal, it's business?" Whatever happened with Landis/Disco in the past has no bearing on what is happening now. I have business partners that I initially hated in the past. I'm doing business with a former employee that I fired. Things change, the emotions of the past are just that - in the past.

So, what is your point again? And how does screwing Landis help tailwind/Disco? Seems they would like to have him cleared to keep the reputation of American cycling intact.

Anonymous said...

Hey anonymous,

The blood doping thing - if you have sources in the peloton that believe this, tell them they'd better go buy a new theory because there's no chance it's right:

* red blood cells won't carry any more than trace testosterone.
* red blood cells won't carry any metabolites.
* T is given slowly (patch or pill), the blood never contains enough T to significantly alter a blood test, even if the blood were drawn while wearing the T patch
* The metabolite test works becasue metabolites from doping accumulate in the urine. They never accumulate in the blood, quite the opposite.
* If all these other things were false, 10% added is not enough to cause a failure.

This dog won't hunt. It won't even bark, or roll over. It might actually play dead though. Except I don't think it would be playing...


DBrower said...

Bannoj, I'm checking up on that letter.


As with a lot of this case, it's as much a sociological experience as a scientific or legal one.

I hear AFT and have little or no idea of his truth value, or his bona-fides. He does seem knowledgeable about some things, and he spins an interesting tale. Maybe as interesting as Area 51 UFO stories, with unknown veracity.

What I take out of UFO stories and AFT is a measure of the zeitgeist. If he spins the story as blood doping, it's a sure bet that a large number of people are capable of believing it. Maybe that includes a bunch of the people in pro-cycling, or maybe not. If they do, maybe it's because they don't follow discussions like these and learn the scientific opinion. Maybe doping is such a black art that they'll believe anything.

Perhaps there really are people in the peloton who would really, deeply, prefer to believe that Landis doped than that he tactically cleaned their clock on S17 and stole back the tour from under their noses while they were playing games back in the pack and making bad decisions on their own.

If they think about it hard enough, they might believe it really strongly, because it's easier than taking the look inside at their own failures-- perhaps of their doping programmes :-).

My only wish with AFT is that he hadn't hijacked my stunning "Public" article, which I suspect was not unintentional.


Anonymous said...

AFT here.

Sorry for hijacking your article. It was unintentional.

Listen guys, personally i don't really care if Landis comes back or not. I'm just telling you what the inside scoop is and that there are other forces at play here.

@ anonymous

Yes, all those people are related by virtue of being in the same sport. Ever heard of conflict of interest? The guy in charge of anti-doping is employed by the guy who owns and finances a team. You don't think that is a problem? Landis refused them, now they signed Basso. You think they want another American to be the superstar rider on a different team? This is hardball business, not amateur sports. You're right, it's all business. If Basso sucks or is accused again, maybe Landis will sign with Disco.

@ thomas

RBCs may only carry traces of testo, but the point here is 'tainted'. If the centrifuging of the blood wasn't done right, who knows what will end up in it. If there was testo left in the blood it could metabolize and show up in the urine. How the hell do I know? And no, it's not only the pill or the patch. Pill is bad for exact dosage and patch is ineffective (unless for overnight recovery). Shot in the ass is the way to go if you want to affect muscle fiber.

In general, I'm no scientist. I'm no doctor. At best, I have rudimentary medical knowledge. But if I hear people describing how things are done, because they've done them, I sure as hell pay attention. And if something like Landis' case comes along I'm a proponent of Occam's razor. Just like in Hamilton's case, too many assumptions have to be made for him to be completely innocent. How do you explain the synthetic testosterone in his urine? And don't start attacking the test, cause killing the messenger simply doesn't work.

Anonymous said...


I understand the conflict of interest and how they can control things. What I don't understand is why they want to screw Landis. Because Landis said no to their offer? Because he MIGHT have said some nasty things during the negitoations/discussions? Please.

Like I said, this is business, not personal. You have any idea what is said during a baseball salary arbritration hearing? It would make a negative political campaign look like romper room. This is how these things work. It's about money. Nasty things are said, people get mad. Then a deal is signed and everyone thinks they can make money off it, and all is foregiven. The powers at USA cycling understand this.

If they wanted him then, they must want him now? Landis' situation has changed so maybe they will be interested again.

As far as not wanting an American Superstar on another team, you again blew up your own theory.

You just stated Landis is a superstar, and will again be one if he beats this drug rap. So Disco's plan is to hire an Italian with a shaky reputation (no matter how fairly it was acquired) and destroy the one American superstar so they don't have to compete against him?

Where does OLN/Versus come in? They don't give a crap about Basso. They want Landis in the Peleton and perferably on Disco. They hand out the money. They count!

I don't see why it is Disco interest to get rid of Landis. And, you have not laid out why it would be impossible to ever sign him again. What exactly happened to cause them to have burned the bridge to Disco? All you said is Landis felt like he was treated unfairly. Well, get in line, everybody at that level feels that way all the time. They get over it, things change, and it is forgotten. Why was Landis' situation so bad that it can never be reconciled so the cycling mafia out a hit out on him?

Anonymous said...

Ok, last post, since everyone has made up their mind about me anyway.

Two people on Disco have very long memories. Bruyneel and Armstrong. They went out of their way to get Landis back. He refused them all year. Now, they've got Basso. It's not in their interest to have Landis ride on another team (and he won't be able to ride for Disco now that Basso is signed), because it would draw attention away. That's what it is all about. Their money doesn't come from OLN. Their money comes from Discovery Channel, Nike and Weisel. Why do you think they signed Chinese and Japanese riders? These guys suck. The only reason they got signed is cuz Discovery Channel wants the market over there.
Sure, Landis and Disco can work together in the future. But not as long as Basso is a contender.
And you guys can call it "my theory" all day long. I'm giving you inside scoop, even if you don't believe it.

be well, keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Discovery shenanigans could be true, AFT, but it doesn't make Bruyneel and Armstrong sound like the brightest lights on the Christmas tree.

Most people like competitive races, and killing off the competition before the racing season starts seems...odd.

Still, it is 'your theory'. I doubt that you heard this directly from Bruyneel or Armstrong. It sounds more like rumors one hears about senior management, those people one would barely recognize in an elevator at work.

Anonymous said...


At the end of your latest rant you argue that Disco and Landis can still work together is Basso sucks. Again, which is it? Did they have a hit on him or not?

And once their done with Landis, why don't they arrange to knee-cap Ullrich, have Valverde ride "accidentally" ride of the side of a moutain and Vino to "unfortunetly" test positive in an out of competition test?

If your going to wipe out the competition, why stop with Landis becasue he had mean words to say about Johan?

Anonymous said...


I'm with you.Have you heard the latest? LA is providing money to Landis's defense fund (why do you think he no longer asks for funds from the fans) - this to keep Landis quiet on the past doping activities. Interesting that they hired Livingstone as their domestic recruiter at this point in time isn't it?

Oh and I've heard about the Weisel/Ochowicz power play too. They don't want the media focusing on an american rider on another team but want all american media focused on Disco (and CTS,...). In my opinion, folks are looking at the wrong conspiracy - 'french are framing the american rider' - smokescreen.

Anonymous said...

What about the recent story on Cyclingnews regarding the instant message conversation between Andreu and Vaughters? In it, it mentions a Floyd having photos which prove that the Disco team blood doped (perhaps of the motorbikes with coolers). Is there any way Floyd was threatening to go public with this info during his feud with Lance last year, and now LA is trying to get back at him? Conspiracy theory, I know, but if true it backs up some of the claims here.