[Chris E]

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3611019

[smug]

to be honest, if he loses this one as well they should add another fine for good measure.

[D-Queued]

Lame.

Does this qualify for a Darwin award yet?

His counsel should also get a fine.

Dave.

[Steve in ATL]

He should have chosen: "Know When to Give Up."

As much as I disagree with some of the findings in the case, he should have a long time ago.

[Chris E]

He should have chosen: "Know When to Give Up."

As much as I disagree with some of the findings in the case, he should have a long time ago.

When you have rube-financed defense slush funds donations from fans that want justice it makes decisions like these a little easier. He must carry on the fight.

[Bobby O]

He should have chosen: "Know When to Give Up."

As much as I disagree with some of the findings in the case, he should have a long time ago.

Mr. Sprintah,

You say "As much as I disagree with some of the findings in the case, he should have a long time ago."
So, if you are punished by a kangaroo court riddled with corruption and serious conflict of issue concerns you would just accept the punishment and move on. Is it not obvious to you that the powers that be will leave no stone unturned trying to stop Landis from returning to cycling? He has to fight them. I'm sure USADA/UCI will come up with another obstacle that Landis must hurdle before he is allowed to return to the peloton and when they do he will fight them some more.

I'm pretty sure you're not a quitah Mr. Sprintah, because if you were you would have probably hung up the bike years ago. Rethink your position and consider what you would do if it were you being railroaded.

Sincerely,

Bobby O

[D-Queued]

Mr. Sprintah,

You say "As much as I disagree with some of the findings in the case, he should have a long time ago."
So, if you are punished by a kangaroo court riddled with corruption and serious conflict of issue concerns you would just accept the punishment and move on. Is it not obvious to you that the powers that be will leave no stone unturned trying to stop Landis from returning to cycling? He has to fight them. I'm sure USADA/UCI will come up with another obstacle that Landis must hurdle before he is allowed to return to the peloton and when they do he will fight them some more.

I'm pretty sure you're not a quitah Mr. Sprintah, because if you were you would have probably hung up the bike years ago. Rethink your position and consider what you would do if it were you being railroaded.

Sincerely,

Bobby O

Ah, come on Bobby O, this scam has gone on longer than Nigerian spam letters.

I have found myself agreeing with you elsewhere, but not on this.

Dave.

[Bobby O]

Ah, come on Bobby O, this scam has gone on longer than Nigerian spam letters.

I have found myself agreeing with you elsewhere, but not on this.

Dave.

Regarding what do you disagree?

1. Kangaroo court.
2. Conflict of interest issues/Corruption.
3. UCI/USADA not wanting Landis to return.
4. Mr. Sprintah da quitah.

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. I must run off to the bank now and deposit this Nigerian check for $100,000 and all I have to do is send them a check for $10,000. Cool, huh. I profit 90K. Do you want me to have them contect you?

[D-Queued]

Regarding what do you disagree?

1. Kangaroo court.
2. Conflict of interest issues/Corruption.
3. UCI/USADA not wanting Landis to return.
4. Mr. Sprintah da quitah.

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. I must run off to the bank now and deposit this Nigerian check for $100,000 and all I have to do is send them a check for $10,000. Cool, huh. I profit 90K. Do you want me to have them contect you?

Unlike me, sprintah no quittah.

Why would any self-respecting sports body want someone to return that has so blatantly and flagrantly violated, well, the rules?

You may not have been around enough to remember the inanities and absurdities in the FFF site. One of the best was the hollow and substanc-less 'play by the rules' finger-pointing. The absurdity of the postulation was no match for the joke that 'guess who' -- and his team -- wasn't playing by the rules.

Rule #1: Don't cheat during competition. D'uh. He broke rule #1.
Rule #2: If you cheat, don't get caught. D'uh. He broke rule #2.
Rule #3: Don't make an idiot of yourself if you do. D'uh. He broke rule #3.

Dave.

[Kiwi]

Interesting update.

"...That panel ruled 3-0 against Landis, upheld his two-year competition ban and added an unprecedented twist: a $100,000 penalty to USADA for legal expenses. The competition ban expired in January, but the $100,000 was due before he could obtain a cycling license allowing him to compete in races such as the Tour of California. “He was unable to pay,” USADA CEO Travis Tygart said in an e-mail. “We agreed to a repayment plan where he pays the $100,000 over time. If he breaks the repayment agreement, he will not be eligible (to compete in future events).”

"Those close to Landis say that when things get tough, he goes into “Mennonite mode,” retreating to the cabin in Idyllwild and stripping his life to the barest essentials, solitude and spokes. The 1,100-square-foot cabin, they say, has no trophies, no yellow jerseys adorning the walls, no pictures of himself triumphantly crossing the finish line in the Alps."

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/200...i/?zIndex=52451

This post has been edited by Kiwi: 13 February 2009 - 07:14 PM

[MacRoadie]

Interesting update.

"...That panel ruled 3-0 against Landis, upheld his two-year competition ban and added an unprecedented twist: a $100,000 penalty to USADA for legal expenses. The competition ban expired in January, but the $100,000 was due before he could obtain a cycling license allowing him to compete in races such as the Tour of California. “He was unable to pay,” USADA CEO Travis Tygart said in an e-mail. “We agreed to a repayment plan where he pays the $100,000 over time. If he breaks the repayment agreement, he will not be eligible (to compete in future events).”

Wait, I thought USADA's case was so weak that they caved the day before their pre-trial brief was due.

[Surftel]

Interesting update.

"...That panel ruled 3-0 against Landis, upheld his two-year competition ban and added an unprecedented twist: a $100,000 penalty to USADA for legal expenses. The competition ban expired in January, but the $100,000 was due before he could obtain a cycling license allowing him to compete in races such as the Tour of California. “He was unable to pay,” USADA CEO Travis Tygart said in an e-mail. “We agreed to a repayment plan where he pays the $100,000 over time. If he breaks the repayment agreement, he will not be eligible (to compete in future events).”

"Those close to Landis say that when things get tough, he goes into “Mennonite mode,” retreating to the cabin in Idyllwild and stripping his life to the barest essentials, solitude and spokes. The 1,100-square-foot cabin, they say, has no trophies, no yellow jerseys adorning the walls, no pictures of himself triumphantly crossing the finish line in the Alps."

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/200...i/?zIndex=52451

More BS. He has been living at Jacob's multi million dollar house on the beach

Wait, I thought USADA's case was so weak that they caved the day before their pre-trial brief was due.

[D-Queued]

More BS. He has been living at Jacob's multi million dollar house on the beach

He must feel somehow entitled to a credit on rent or something.

Didn't someone suggest that my postulated, but probable, version of the negotiated settement was "not what happened"? Apparently the fear of having what was in the USADA's file being made public was pretty motivating to get a move on. Please note that in making that postulation, I was not trying to make any value statement about Landis or his case whatsoever.

It was simply the most logical explanation given the timing. If you want something suppressed that is about to be presented, you settle.

He settled.

Ergo, there was at least some value in suppressing what was about to be submitted.

If there is any value statement to be made, I would commend him on that decision, not mock him.

Pay up buddy, you lost that bet.

Or, if you prefer, please do us all a favor and take the (fictional) money you lost on that bet and apply it to help pay the fine so that we can all put this behind us. Just don't let him try and use it to rent another room at the Hotel Jacobs.

Can we not put this behind us as it is this whole thing is just beyond absurdity at this point?

Dave.

[Surftel]

He must feel somehow entitled to a credit on rent or something.

The Jacobs I am referring to is the one whose daddy founded Qualcomm, not the scumbag lawyer

[D-Queued]

The Jacobs I am referring to is the one whose daddy founded Qualcomm, not the scumbag lawyer

Ouch- my bad.

Apologies!

Dave.