First, this is NOT an anti-Lance topic, but it is all about drugs in Cycling. A lot of the time I think it's all too murky and distasteful to read about. I'd rather concentrate on great riding and epic tour stages than dredge up the rumours and crap. If you feel that way, s'ok, I get it- move on now.
Maybe it's because the season is over (except for a couple of UCI exhibition races in China) and I'm trawling wider to find cycling news. At inrng blog I picked up the story of the UCI are suing journalist Paul Kimmage for 'slandering' Pat McQuaid and his predecessor- ie. Kimmage interviews confessed dopers and actually reports what they said about the apparent complicity and double standards of the UCI on doping. Inrng is publicizing the Kimmage Defense fund to help fight the UCI lawsuit. Basically the point being that most cycling journos know if they rock the boat the UCI and the peloton in general will blacklist them and they might as well take up reporting lawn bowls. UCI seem to be singling Kimmage out as a warning to the rest of the media.
And that's how I found the Kimmage/Landis interview. The whole transcript. WOW. It's long (apparently 7 hours worth of talking) but I was riveted. Remember Landis was such a pariah when he was here in Aus in 2010. People were disgusted that he'd protested his innocence, even published book, then raised millions of dollars from donors to prove his case.... Only at the last minute to back-flip and admit that yes, of course he doped..
Yep, that was contemptible behaviour, but now I think I understand him a lot better. Grab a cup of tea, or a glass of red- It's a great read. And the LA thing has advanced since this interview was done, which provides us more background to Floyd's story. I'm interested to hear what you think.
Don my only comments relate to Landis. He is a proven drug using, whilst cycling professionally. He is a proven liar and he 'stole' millions of dollars from his supporters to fuel his, "I'm not Guilty" campaign. It will still be interesting to see if he spends time in the 'clink', if he does not repay those monies he has been ordered to by the Courts. As far as LA goes, until he is proven guilty of anything, he is still innocent, in my eyes.
(waiting for the howls)
No, no howls :-)
When I say 'it helped me understand', don't think I'm defending his deeds or his character. The story he tells Kimmage does him no favours. As to how much of this interview you believe, given his history of lies, I guess that's what I'm asking. Personally I believe most of it, but if you maintain LA is innocent then there can be no question- Floyd must still be lying.
I haven't read this interview yet, but I have read Hamilton's book and I suspect my feelings are similar to yours.
Now I await Lance going into the clink.
It reads exactly like Hamilton's story- candid, jawdropping details, accepting of his own wrongdoing, and the anecdotes are very very similar to Hamilton's. A lot of the interview teases out Landis' upbringing, which p'raps helped explain why he dug himself into a deeper and deeper web of lies, before he finally had the guts to come clean. He said he felt he couldn't make 'half of an admission' ie: be honest about his own crime but at the same time avoid implicating others, so he continued to deny everything..
Back to where I started- the Kimmage court case. This week's events give his lawyer plenty of ammunition as to why the remarks Kimmage made were fair and reasonable conclusions, not malicious defamation.