[floridacyclist]

It appears that Arnie Baker* (allegedly) is claimed to have paid real money to a bad dude that was apparently provided with falsified evidence that the bad dude could try and plant on the LNDD computers.

I was going to provide the dozen or so links to the English-language articles in the sports media and especially the cycling media, but, what is that ... the sound of crickets chirping? ... the sight of three monkeys, one with hands over eyes, one with hands over ears, one with hands over ears?

I'm shocked, just SHOCKED, that this is now assumedly well-known to the "journalists" (cough, choke) in these "media" and not a single one of them has seen fit to devote even a single-column inch to it!!

What a complete joke of a co-opted, bought-sold-and-paid-for bunch of rags they are.

Ironically, while I find the way Floyd stumbled and bumbled his way through this most unfortunate, it's well-understandable to me why he made the decisions he made to enter that world, to go for the jersey, to take the risks he felt were worth it and necessary, and then to succumb to tremendously poor advice on how to find his way out of it all, I have nothing but disdain for Baker and the hangers-on. They have no such excuse. Of all the lows I've seen in the whole sorry doping game, this is the lowest of them all.

This post has been edited by floridacyclist: 21 April 2009 - 12:58 AM

[zekeydekey]

I was going to provide the dozen or so links to the English-language articles in the sports media and especially the cycling media, but, what is that ... the sound of crickets chirping? ... the sight of three monkeys, one with hands over eyes, one with hands over ears, one with hands over ears?

I'm shocked, just SHOCKED, that this is now assumedly well-known to the "journalists" (cough, choke) in these "media" and not a single one of them has seen fit to devote even a single-column inch to it!!

What a complete joke of a co-opted, bought-sold-and-paid-for bunch of rags they are.

Ironically, while I find the way Floyd stumbled and bumbled his way through this most unfortunate, it's well-understandable to me why he made the decisions he made to enter that world, to go for the jersey, to take the risks he felt were worth it and necessary, and then to succumb to tremendously poor advice on how to find his way out of it all, I have nothing but disdain for Baker and the hangers-on. They have no such excuse. Of all the lows I've seen in the whole sorry doping game, this is the lowest of them all.

Lower than the threats to LeMond? That's a high bar.

[floridacyclist]

Lower than the threats to LeMond? That's a high bar.

Yes, lower than the threats to Lemond. The threats to Lemond, as repugnant as they were, I can see as driven by ill-advised passion of the moment. Juvenile, yes. Horrid and reprehensible, yes.

But in the case of Baker, we're talking about something that couldn't be accomplished in the heat of an intoxicated moment, driven by rash emotion in the moment. What Baker did required cold calculation and cunning, had to have taken place over a period of time long enough for him to have slept off any ill-effects of momentary emotion or imbibed potions.

Agree with you 100%, that was a high bar, indeed. But I do believe Baker cleared with room to spare.

[Andrew]

Ali (chirp, chirp) are you out there?

[zekeydekey]

Yes, lower than the threats to Lemond. The threats to Lemond, as repugnant as they were, I can see as driven by ill-advised passion of the moment. Juvenile, yes. Horrid and reprehensible, yes.

But in the case of Baker, we're talking about something that couldn't be accomplished in the heat of an intoxicated moment, driven by rash emotion in the moment. What Baker did required cold calculation and cunning, had to have taken place over a period of time long enough for him to have slept off any ill-effects of momentary emotion or imbibed potions.

Agree with you 100%, that was a high bar, indeed. But I do believe Baker cleared with room to spare.

Let me say this (if just for the record, as I do get your point) but the LeMons incident was in fact premeditated. Landis made a threat to out damaging persona info about LeMond on this very board, and then did it-- oh, sorry, "his camp" did it. Without his knowledge of course.

[Velo]

It appears that Arnie Baker* (allegedly) is claimed to have paid real money to a bad dude that was apparently provided with falsified evidence that the bad dude could try and plant on the LNDD computers.

Curious as to where that money came from - the Free Floyd fund, perhaps? God I hope some of that cash was whareagles, ali's, and the folks over at tbv.

[D-Queued]

Arnie, Floyd, and the whole Landis posse will be at the Dana Point GP on Sunday.

Just sayin...

You will likely be able to spot them, because if they are wearing black as has been their custom, then they are the bad guys. Let us know if Floyd rides like he just stole something would you? And, you might want to ask Arnie if he has any plans for
Paris
in the
the Spring?

Speaking of bad dudes, what history does Greenpeace have with French services personnel? Oh, that's right, murder in NZ. French special forces sabatoged and murdered Greenpeace members during an anti-nuke protest.

Perhaps there is no relation with this Theirry Lorho, a former member of the secret service (DGSE), but that case was notorious.

Sometimes you can judge someone by the people that they hang out with. Floyd picks Arnie, Arnie picks these guys. Floyd picks Will...

When the US news media finally gets a whiff of this, it could be interesting.

The juxtaposition of the three riders of the Apocolypse should be pretty tempting to a journo.

Dave.

[frenchfry]

Curious as to where that money came from - the Free Floyd fund, perhaps? God I hope some of that cash was whareagles, ali's, and the folks over at tbv.

I wonder if they are managing to maintain their rightous attitudes given this little tidbit. Probably, as the truth has never stopped them from their delusional mission.

I wonder how Bill Hue (who I appreciated at first) is interpreting this. Probably will justify this as a necessary act given the "injustice" Floyd was facing. The ends justify the means.

Pathetic, from the word go.

[walt]

It is strange that this has not been picked up anywhere else. Has anybody seen any other links to this story?

[frenchfry]

It is strange that this has not been picked up anywhere else. Has anybody seen any other links to this story?

Landis has been pretty low profile since his return, partly due to his lack of results but he appears to willing to leave the wiki attitude behind. Understandable, he has nothing to be proud of.

Maybe the American feeding frenzy around Armstrong has something to do with this as well, and now Hamilton will also take some of the attention away from him.

[Thomas A. Fine]

Just to clarify some things.

I looked at both babelfish and goole's translations.

The notion that any evidence was planted is something that seems to have been created here on DPF based on google's translation version:

In presenting its own data from laboratory french, Baker hoped, it seems, exonerate his rider.

Whereas babelfish says:

By presenting to its manner the data resulting from the French laboratory, Baker hoped, seems it, to clear its runner.

I think the intent was simply to say that Baker used the data obtained from the laboratory hacking in his presentations, which we all knew already. Not that he used HIS data in the hacking scheme. Maybe the original french is ambiguous too.

As far as the truth of the story, a careful read shows that everything in the second and third paragraphs is background information - stuff that happened in 2006. Except for this new and completely unsubstantiated allegation about Baker. That sentence makes no sense there, and in general it makes no sense to throw out such a meaty new item so casually and with no basis. It's also interesting that no other story anywhere has picked up on this tidbit.

All these things taken together make me I think that the reporter here got confused about past events from 2006. Probably misread some old speculation about Arnie, since he was using the hacked data in his presentations, and simply incorrectly reported that a link had been established back in 2006, when none actually had been.

tom

[Lister Farrar]

Just to clarify some things.

I looked at both babelfish and goole's translations.

The notion that any evidence was planted is something that seems to have been created here on DPF based on google's translation version:
Whereas babelfish says:
I think the intent was simply to say that Baker used the data obtained from the laboratory hacking in his presentations, which we all knew already. Not that he used HIS data in the hacking scheme. Maybe the original french is ambiguous too.

As far as the truth of the story, a careful read shows that everything in the second and third paragraphs is background information - stuff that happened in 2006. Except for this new and completely unsubstantiated allegation about Baker. That sentence makes no sense there, and in general it makes no sense to throw out such a meaty new item so casually and with no basis. It's also interesting that no other story anywhere has picked up on this tidbit.

All these things taken together make me I think that the reporter here got confused about past events from 2006. Probably misread some old speculation about Arnie, since he was using the hacked data in his presentations, and simply incorrectly reported that a link had been established back in 2006, when none actually had been.

tom

My sense was the news was that Baker was implicated in arranging the hacking. Not just using the hacked documents in Landis's defence. No?

[N.B.O.L.]

Just to clarify some things.

I looked at both babelfish and goole's translations.

The notion that any evidence was planted is something that seems to have been created here on DPF based on google's translation version:
Whereas babelfish says:
I think the intent was simply to say that Baker used the data obtained from the laboratory hacking in his presentations, which we all knew already. Not that he used HIS data in the hacking scheme. Maybe the original french is ambiguous too.

As far as the truth of the story, a careful read shows that everything in the second and third paragraphs is background information - stuff that happened in 2006. Except for this new and completely unsubstantiated allegation about Baker. That sentence makes no sense there, and in general it makes no sense to throw out such a meaty new item so casually and with no basis. It's also interesting that no other story anywhere has picked up on this tidbit.

All these things taken together make me I think that the reporter here got confused about past events from 2006. Probably misread some old speculation about Arnie, since he was using the hacked data in his presentations, and simply incorrectly reported that a link had been established back in 2006, when none actually had been.

tom

Tom,

I found the google translation ambiguous as well. From it the only thing I could get was that Baker & the hacker knew each other. In post #2 of this thread, Frenchfry presented a summary translation of what the article says. It is the clearest version I have seen anywhere. I know FF's position on the whole thing, but it doesn't appear to 'me' that his position shaded his translation for us non-French-Speaking members of the board.

[Thomas A. Fine]

Tom,

I found the google translation ambiguous as well. From it the only thing I could get was that Baker & the hacker knew each other. In post #2 of this thread, Frenchfry presented a summary translation of what the article says. It is the clearest version I have seen anywhere. I know FF's position on the whole thing, but it doesn't appear to 'me' that his position shaded his translation for us non-French-Speaking members of the board.

Here's what FF says:

According to the article, it was Baker that released the information under a false name, and the information was obtained by a French spy/hacker that was also involved in spying on Greenpeace. The spy/hacker admitted to his relationship with Baker. The information on Greenpeace was discovered during the investigation into the Landis affair.

There is absolutely nothing in the article that states or implies that the hacker admitted any relationship with Baker. FF seems to have made the exact same kind of error in quick-reading that the I believe the reporter made in misreading case history.

There's one other bit I left out in my analysis. Later in the article (babelfish) it says:

If the shutter “Landis” of the instruction hardly progresses (to date, the mystery remains whole on the possible part played by Lorho and the coach of the runner), the situation is quite different of the shutter “Greenpeace”.

In other words, Baker's possible role (the coach of the runner) is completely a mystery. This seems to completely contradict the "new" allegation against Baker, and is another reason why I think this reporter was just confused about past facts.

From what I've read here and elsewhere, they know based on files on Alain Quiros computer, as well as by his own confession, that he was the one that hacked the LNDD. It isn't clear if the 2000 Euros was payment for the LNDD hacking or another hacking. And I haven't found anyhing that indicates that Mr. Quiros has said who paid him. I can't quite figure out when he was caught, some sources seem to imply that they nabbed him months ago.

My sense was the news was that Baker was implicated in arranging the hacking. Not just using the hacked documents in Landis's defence. No?

Sorry my mistake. I was only trying to speak to the notion of planting evidence, and how that notion could come from ambigous translation.

Yes, the article implies that Baker arranged the hacking and paid 2,000 for it (but it does not state this). It states that Baker is Norman Crepin, the fake author of the letters that were sent out containing the hacked lab data. It is this particular statement that I believe was based on a misreading of case history from 2006, and that no such revelation actually exists.

It's just such a surprising allegation to say that Baker is Crepin, and not talk about how this was established, and all in a paragraph that's otherwise discussing ancient history. And then later contradict that and say that the case is not progressing and Baker's role remains a complete mystery. AND on top of all that no one else picks up on the story at all.

tom

[fab]

Tom,

I found the google translation ambiguous as well. From it the only thing I could get was that Baker & the hacker knew each other. In post #2 of this thread, Frenchfry presented a summary translation of what the article says. It is the clearest version I have seen anywhere. I know FF's position on the whole thing, but it doesn't appear to 'me' that his position shaded his translation for us non-French-Speaking members of the board.

I agree what has written FF is clearly what was written in french.

It's cleared stated that the hacker and Arnie Baker were in relation together. No doubt.

La PJ découvre alors que, sous l'identité de l'entreprenant M. Crepin, se cache en fait un certain Arnie Baker, qui n'est autre... que le coach de Landis!

In short : Police discovered that Mr Crepin was M. Arnie Baker.

There is few informations about the Baker's forgered (?) documents. Did he used only footers and headers of real documents, or more ...?

Like almost all French I doubt that the reporter (he is not a sport reporter) had read Arnie Baker's allegations. Very few of us took care of it.

Added:
The reporter said that they have found Baker in first then the hacker without mentionning how they did.

This post has been edited by fab: 25 April 2009 - 05:17 PM

[Thomas A. Fine]

I agree what has written FF is clearly what was written in french.

It's cleared stated that the hacker and Baker were in relation together. No doubt.

In short : Police discovered that Mr Crepin was M. Arnie Baker.

Maybe this is a source of your confusion: Mr. Crepin is NOT the hacker. Mr. Crepin is a fictitious person who sent out the hacked information to numerous athletes and news agencies.

The hacker's name is Alain Quiros, and it has never been stated anywhere that he "admitted his relationship with Baker" It absolutely does NOT say this in the article.

As for the statement that Crepin was Baker, I think this was wrongly reported for the reasons stated previously.

tom

[fab]

Maybe this is a source of your confusion: Mr. Crepin is NOT the hacker. Mr. Crepin is a fictitious person who sent out the hacked information to numerous athletes and news agencies.

I never made a such confusion... And in what is reported, there is no confusion too.

The hacker's name is Alain Quiros, and it has never been stated anywhere that he "admitted his relationship with Baker" It absolutely does NOT say this in the article.

What is VERY CLEARLY stated
First Police identified Crepin as Baker
Then they caught Quiros

Reste à identifier la personne qui lui (=Arnie Baker) (Police had to identify the man who had given the hacked informations to Arnie Baker) a fourni des informations en pénétrant dans les serveurs du laboratoire. Les enquêteurs finissent par aboutir à Alain Quiros, ex-employé d'une société de sécurité à Paris. Ce surdoué de l'informatique, rémunéré des broutilles pour cette mission - 2 000 euros - s'est installé au Maroc quelque temps après son piratage. Entendu en juillet 2008 par la police marocaine sur commission rogatoire du juge français Thomas Cassuto, il reconnaît les faits. (Quiros admited the facts )

Because the reporter didn't name the facts, so he is implicitly referring at what he wrote earlier !

If it's not like that it was really very poorly written as a reporter.

This post has been edited by fab: 24 April 2009 - 09:58 PM

[Ali]

I never made a such confusion... And in what is reported, there is no confusion too.
What is VERY CLEARLY stated
First Police identified Crepin as Baker
Then they caught Quiros

Because the reporter didn't name the facts, so he is implicitly referring at what he wrote earlier !

If it's not like that it was really very poorly written as a reporter.

For a start, I think constant reference to frenchfry's French credentials may be misplaced. He/She is obviously not French by upbringing, although I concede they may reside there now.

The point I was making previously was the tendency to read between the lines which predominates on this forum. In other words, you're reading things which weren't actually said ... get it, fab ?

[N.B.O.L.]

For a start, I think constant reference to frenchfry's French credentials may be misplaced. He/She is obviously not French by upbringing, although I concede they may reside there now.

I am aware that Frenchfry is not French by birth. It is my understanding that he is married to a French Woman, lives in the country, and of necessity speaks the language. He has given translations on the forum before, not all in the doping forum, and they have always been helpful for me. YMMV. As I stated when I pointed out his post to Tom Fine, I am aware that their opinions about the underlying mater are almost polar opposites. Still I appreciate him doing it, because I got nothing from the google translation.

So assuming Frenchfry's summary translation is accurate, and further assuming that the information in the article itself was accurate we then have the following:

Arnie Baker is the one who leaked the documents. (One for the Floyd bashers)
Arnie Baker may have asked for & paid for the hacking. (If confirmed one for the Floyd bashers)
Neither AFLD or the article make any claim that the documents themselves were not authentic. (One for the Floyd Supporters)

Is there anything else that I have missed?

[Ali]

I am aware that Frenchfry is not French by birth. It is my understanding that he is married to a French Woman, lives in the country, and of necessity speaks the language. He has given translations on the forum before, not all in the doping forum, and they have always been helpful for me. YMMV. As I stated when I pointed out his post to Tom Fine, I am aware that their opinions about the underlying mater are almost polar opposites. Still I appreciate him doing it, because I got nothing from the google translation.

So assuming Frenchfry's summary translation is accurate, and further assuming that the information in the article itself was accurate we then have the following:

Arnie Baker is the one who leaked the documents. (One for the Floyd bashers)
Arnie Baker may have asked for & paid for the hacking. (If confirmed one for the Floyd bashers)
Neither AFLD or the article make any claim that the documents themselves were not authentic. (One for the Floyd Supporters)

Is there anything else that I have missed?

???
You start by saying that the translation/interpretation may be garbage and then proceed to draw conclusions based on that translation. Your call, I guess. Not the path I would choose to follow, though. Incidentally, we're only talking about translating French, for goodness sake. It's not exactly rocket science.