Lanis on Larry King Options

[lakeArrowheadrider]

Landis on king:

http://www.bikeworldnews.com/index.php/201...nds-larry-king/

A few Flyoidiant slips.

This post has been edited by lakeArrowheadrider: Feb 19 2010, 09:26 PM

[D-Queued]

Landis on king:

http://www.bikeworldnews.com/index.php/201...nds-larry-king/

A few Flyoidiant slips.

Like ducking the Larryiant slip on denying doping, when he meant to ask about denying hacking.

And ducking it again, later...

When Larry asked him again, so you deny hacking or doping:

"I shouldn't laugh, but..." (gave no answer)

And, would you go to France if you were served this notice?

"I would have to see what it says..." (another non-answer)

Dave.

[MacRoadie]

Landis on king:

http://www.bikeworldnews.com/index.php/201...nds-larry-king/

A few Flyoidiant slips.

And of course not one mention by Floyd or Kay or any attempt to correct King's misunderstanding or misrepresentation that Floyd is accused of the actual hacking. Everyone knows (as should Larry) that the identity of the actual hacker has been known for months.

Over and over, Floyd denies committing an act that no one is even acccusing him of...

[Old Runner Guy]

And of course not one mention by Floyd or Kay or any attempt to correct King's misunderstanding or misrepresentation that Floyd is accused of the actual hacking. Everyone knows (as should Larry) that the identity of the actual hacker has been known for months.

Over and over, Floyd denies committing an act that no one is even acccusing him of...

I saw that more being a case that Larry is senile and impossible to communicate with.

[D-Queued]

I saw that more being a case that Larry is senile and impossible to communicate with.

He may or may not be senile, but Floyd and Kay produced lie after lie.

When Larry asked that, and that (hacking) is what you have been charged with, they conveniently responded 'that is what is in the press'. Which is BS.

They introduced the whole Joe Papp "Star Witness" thing without any prompt from Larry, when Joe Papp's testimony wasn't used in either the Arbitration Hearing or the CAS case. Again, more BS from Floyd and Kay.

KING: So what do you make of these charges?

KAY: Well, I think it's a matter -- it's a means for them to go after Dr. Baker, who did a tremendous amount of work in Floyd's defense. It's another means to try to make Floyd look bad, particularly in light of the fact that their star witness this week was convicted of drug trafficking. You saw the star witness that they used to testify against Floyd in his hearing was convicted in federal court this -- this week of drug trafficking. And this is the person that they used, you know, to say that Floyd utilized these different products during the Tour de France.

Then, they conveniently charge the lab with taking away Floyd's title. More BS.

KING: And the title was taken away?

LANDIS: It was taken away by the -- by the very lab that's making these allegation.

The lab does not have the authority, and cannot take that action. In fact, wasn't the title actually removed before the arbitration hearing - in fact, removed well before the B sample result?

Jul 23, 2006

Floyd Landis Stripped of Tour de France Title

PARIS - Just moments after his victory in the Tour de France, Floyd Landis was stripped of his yellow jersey.

Landis lies, lies and lies.

BS and more BS. Maybe Lance was right to describe him with s-bombs.

Dave.

[Old Runner Guy]

Again, watch the interview in the link above and not read the transcript. The tone and tenor of most of Larry's question sound like they are coming for a person that is confused, lost and not really sure what he was suppose to ask them. That's why I said Larry was senile. I'm not sure he knew what day of the week it was. (The joke name for the "Larry King Live" Show show is "Larry King Barely Alive")

I saw Floyd more trying to answer the question that he should have been asked and not what Larry was actually asking as those questions were confusing and not on topic.

Also, as someone who is frequently interviewed on TV, like Floyd, you understand that you only have a few seconds and a few words to get your point across so you greatly condense what you have to say. So regarding this passage:

KING: And the title was taken away?

LANDIS: It was taken away by the -- by the very lab that's making these allegation.

I believe Floyd was trying to short-hand the answer that the same lab that conducted the original tests that lead to him losing his title is now telling the world their is a warrant for his arrest.

Unless you have been in a 5 minute TV interview with a producer screaming in your ear you have 12 seconds to answer the question, trust me these things should never be scrutinized like this. And yes, he could have answered it like I wrote it but he did not know what Larry was about to ask and he had about a 1/3 of second to formulate an answer.

[D-Queued]

Again, watch the interview in the link above and not read the transcript. The tone and tenor of most of Larry's question sound like they are coming for a person that is confused, lost and not really sure what he was suppose to ask them. That's why I said Larry was senile. I'm not sure he knew what day of the week it was. (The joke name for the "Larry King Live" Show show is "Larry King Barely Alive")

I saw Floyd more trying to answer the question that he should have been asked and not what Larry was actually asking as those questions were confusing and not on topic.

Also, as someone who is frequently interviewed on TV, like Floyd, you understand that you only have a few seconds and a few words to get your point across so you greatly condense what you have to say. So regarding this passage:

KING: And the title was taken away?

LANDIS: It was taken away by the -- by the very lab that's making these allegation.

I believe Floyd was trying to short-hand the answer that the same lab that conducted the original tests that lead to him losing his title is now telling the world their is a warrant for his arrest.

Unless you have been in a 5 minute TV interview with a producer screaming in your ear you have 12 seconds to answer the question, trust me these things should never be scrutinized like this. And yes, he could have answered it like I wrote it but he did not know what Larry was about to ask and he had about a 1/3 of second to formulate an answer.

No, I am not going to 'trust you'.

You have no idea what my level of experience is with TV interviews. Landis clearly steered this towards the ends that he wished for. And, yes, these things should be scrutinized.

After all, you are trying to hold out the same interview as some sort of example of confirming his innocense. If so, then you are asking that the interview be scrutinized.

You cannot have it both ways - and you are evading the Landis/Kay evasions and redirections.

As noted, it is a lie that the lab took away the TDF title. It had been taken away before the lab was done with its work. I am surprised that you would cite this quote as it is so obviously a Floyd lie that he had complete control over in his "12 seconds". In fact, consistent with Dr. Hare's trait #1, Landis clearly exhibits

1. GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM -- the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile.

He should be charged with emotion, he should be stumbling over words. But, he is not. Never did Floyd appear lost for words. And, he had no problem inserting the messages that he wanted. He even breaks out into laughter. That is not someone who is straining to formulate an answer in 1/3 of a second.

It is a lie that Joe Papp was a star witness, for example, and it is deliberately misleading of Landis/Kay to insert this into the interview.

Where are the hard questions?

Why was Kay even involved in the interview?

He claims to know that Floyd is not a hacker. Even though that was another Red Herring, is Kay an expert in Hacking? What was Kay even doing there? Waiting to insert something about Papp in case Floyd did not? Yes, it appeared very rehearsed betweent he two. Again, no struggle formulating answers.

The subpoena and warrant are about a hacking case, but Floyd and Kay got to twist this every which way they wanted.

Whether alive, dead or barely alive, Larry is the King of softball and Landis was obviously thrilled to extend his 15 minutes of fame to spread more nonsense.

Dave.

This post has been edited by D-Queued: Feb 21 2010, 02:31 AM

[MacRoadie]

Unless you have been in a 5 minute TV interview with a producer screaming in your ear you have 12 seconds to answer the question, trust me these things should never be scrutinized like this.

And earlier, he had all day to come up with:

Shyt! F@ck LNDD F@ck USADA F@ck J.Papp F@ck P.McQuaid F@ck T.Tygart and F@ck You!

Nope, not buying it.

[Old Runner Guy]

Nope, not buying it.

Rake and D:

Do you hold the same vitriol for Bordry at the LNDD for lying as well?

To be clear, Bordry, speaking in his role as the head of the LNDD and therefore the French Government said:

• It was an "international warrant" Their is no such thing, judges only issue national warrants. "International" sounds more serious and was the magic word that help to generate even more headlines about this case.
• He's wanted for failing to appear for questions not for being part of the hacker ring. He has not been charged with that. Bordry said he's wanted to for hacking.
• The U.S and France treaty that lays out the specific way to legally summon Landis and Baker to Paris. It appears this procedure has not been followed. AB and FL claim they have not been legally contacted by the French and all of a sudden the LNDD has decided to not comment about this part of the case (see the LNDD's statement in the transcript above). So Bordry said they were summoned to Paris, FL and AB said they have not received any legal summons from France. When Bordry/LNDD was asked to respond, he now says he has no no comment.

Bordry is a government employee and his words have the weight and prestige of the French Government. Landis is a private US citizen. Bordry words should be held to a higher standard of professionalism than a private citizen.

Lets be consistent here boys. Where your outage about Bordry? Remember that regularly and repeatedly the LNDD breaks the law by leaking test results to the media.

My guess is these lies are ok with you. You approve of lies that might paint Landis in a bad light.

This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: Feb 21 2010, 02:49 PM

[patrick]

Rake and D:

Do you hold the same vitriol for Bordry at the LNDD for lying as well?

To be clear, Bordry, speaking in his role as the head of the LNDD and therefore the French Government said:

• It was an "international warrant" Their is no such thing, judges only issue national warrants. "International" sounds more serious and was the magic word that help to generate even more headlines about this case.
• He's wanted for failing to appear for questions not for being part of the hacker ring. He has not been charged with that. Bordry said he's wanted to for hacking.
• The U.S and France treaty that lays out the specific way to legally summon Landis and Baker to Paris. It appears this procedure has not been followed. AB and FL claim they have not been legally contacted by the French and all of a sudden the LNDD has decided to not comment about this part of the case (see the LNDD's statement in the transcript above). So Bordry said they were summoned to Paris, FL and AB said they have not received any legal summons from France. When Bordry/LNDD was asked to respond, he now says he has no no comment.

Bordry is a government employee and his words have the weight and prestige of the French Government. Landis is a private US citizen. Bordry words should be held to a higher standard of professionalism than a private citizen.

Lets be consistent here boys. Where your outage about Bordry? Remember that regularly and repeatedly the LNDD breaks the law by leaking test results to the media.

My guess is these lies are ok with you. You approve of lies that might paint Landis in a bad light.

bordry is a politician, so why would you expect him to be truthful?

i saw where someone had floated the theory that this is nothing but a tactic he's using to get more funding.
at first i dismissed it as foil hat material, but as the story unfolds i'm starting to wonder..........

[MacRoadie]

Do you hold the same vitriol for Bordry at the LNDD for lying as well?

Is this response directed at me? My comment was specific to the Landis comments on Larry King Live (curiously, the topic of this thread). Nice straw man though.

[patrick]

Is this response directed at me? My comment was specific to the Landis comments on Larry King Live (curiously, the topic of this thread). Nice straw man though.

look at the top, he addressed rake and dave

[MacRoadie]

look at the top, he addressed rake and dave

But he quoted me, that's why I asked.

This post has been edited by MacRoadie: Feb 21 2010, 03:56 PM

[Old Runner Guy]

But he quoted me, that's why I asked. I guess that's how you build an argument: just pick and choose and mix and match as you see fit.

quoting you was a mistake, it's a question for Rake and D

[MacRoadie]

quoting you was a mistake, it's a question for Rake and D

No problem, I'll remove the snotty dig.

[fab]

Do you hold the same vitriol for Bordry at the LNDD for lying as well?

How can you confuse lies and mistakes so easily?

What you have not get it's the warrant can be changed to international warrant if Landis or Baker landed in a country having an extradition agreement with France. So it's just a half mistake.

BTW are you sure of his words? Are you sure that were not a reporter mistake?
Why are you so quick to condemn people without an an appropriate hearing? Are you living in a country where "guilty until proven innocent" is the standard?

Did the pen of the reported calibrated according the URI requirements?

To be clear, Bordry, speaking in his role as the head of the LNDD and therefore the French Government said:

• He's wanted for failing to appear for questions not for being part of the hacker ring. He has not been charged with that. Bordry said he's wanted to for hacking.

Wrong again.
You have no quotation of his words. And no one knows the real motive of judge.

• The U.S and France treaty that lays out the specific way to legally summon Landis and Baker to Paris. It appears this procedure has not been followed. AB and FL claim they have not been legally contacted by the French and all of a sudden the LNDD has decided to not comment about this part of the case (see the LNDD's statement in the transcript above). So Bordry said they were summoned to Paris, FL and AB said they have not received any legal summons from France. When Bordry/LNDD was asked to respond, he now says he has no no comment.

Bordry is a government employee and his words have the weight and prestige of the French Government. Landis is a private US citizen. Bordry words should be held to a higher standard of professionalism than a private citizen.

Lets be consistent here boys. Where your outage about Bordry? Remember that regularly and repeatedly the LNDD breaks the law by leaking test results to the media.

My guess is these lies are ok with you. You approve of lies that might paint Landis in a bad light.

You are transforming your assumptions to facts.

First, Cassuto's office reported that Landis and Baker have been summoned according French laws procedures. So what said Landis and Baker is not important.

Until you prove that Cassuto was wrong, I still believe that he and his office are more competent than you.

Never was reported that leaks were done by LNDD. Where are your proofs? (Do you have 6 EPO samples on your shelf as proof )

[D-Queued]

quoting you was a mistake, it's a question for Rake and D

Are you sure you don't want to stick with MacRoadie's answer?

Can we hold you to the same standard as you are trying to hold Bordry?

Because, you are distorting the truth far more than you accuse Bordry of.

Thus, if you want me to hold vitriol for what may be Bordry's level of distortion, then I must hold more vitriol for someone that promotes even greater distortion.

Let's not forget that Landis has an arrest warrant issued against him, not Bordry. It is absurd and a gross distortion to try and compare the two in this way. Thus, your fundamental premise is a gross distortion, an inherent lie, and is thus reprehensible.

How about if we try using facts, instead of your fiction?

• "Bordry, speaking in his role as the head of the ... French Government said"
  
  Bordry does not speak for the French Government. Just as, for example, Travis Tygart does not speak for the US Government. The AFLD is a state-sanctioned organization, not the official government of France.
  
  Thus, you are deliberately lying. And, that is reprehensible.
  
• "It was an "international warrant" Their is no such thing, judges only issue national warrants. "International" sounds more serious"
  
  Do you know what the procedure is for national versus international warrants? If not, then you are purposefully distorting this situation. Here is an AP udpate:

  Earlier Monday, France's anti-doping chief Pierre Bordry had mistakenly described the arrest warrant as international. Granoux stressed that the warrant is only applicable on French soil. It is possible in such cases to issue an international warrant at a later date if needed.

  In other words, if Landis continues to dip and dodge, he - and you - should expect an "international warrant".
  
  Perhaps Bordry was ahead of himself, but he does appear to be describing the inevitable.
  
• "Bordry said he's wanted to for hacking."
  
  This is an outright lie by you.

  According to CyclingNews, Yahoo, ESPN, Reuters, Time, AP, and dozens of other articles, "Landis used the hacked files for his defense, that's how we discovered the whole scheme," Bordry said to the Associated Press.

  Your distortion is reprehensible.
  
  You are lying.
  
• "The U.S and France treaty ..." You don't even know what treaty applies here, how it applies, or how it will be appied.
  
  Pretending to know any of these things is a lie.

You are lying. That is reprehensible, and deserves scorn and vitriole.

Dave.

[Old Runner Guy]

First, Cassuto's office reported that Landis and Baker have been summoned according French laws procedures. So what said Landis and Baker is not important.

Until you prove that Cassuto was wrong, I still believe that he and his office are more competent than you.

---

Again, their is no such thing as an "international warrant" Only the world court in the Hague issues "international" warrants. All warrants are applicable for the jurisdiction of the court.

In the case of Cassuto (the "controversial" judge that talks to dogs), that applies only for France. He is correct on this narrow part. Landis is saying he was not LEGALLY notified of the warrant. Baker says the same. Their is a treaty with France that lays out how to notify an American of a Warrant in France. That has not been followed. The French refuse to say the treaty was followed so I assume it was not, otherwise they would. Why have the French not followed this rule and then make international news about it? Because they are more interested in soiling Landis reputation than talking to him. This hacking thing is garbage, the NY Times quote the French in August saying the French no evidence FL and AB were involved. Now they are? I call BS

---

According to CyclingNews, Yahoo, ESPN, Reuters, Time, AP, and dozens of other articles, "Landis used the hacked files for his defense, that's how we discovered the whole scheme," Bordry said to the Associated Press.

This is also a lie. See the record, these files were public months before the hearing. We have many many threads on these files months before the hearing.

They presented the files at the hearing but they were not the basis of their defense.

This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: Feb 21 2010, 06:34 PM

[MacRoadie]

New Public Strategies contract ORG?

I love the "talks to dogs" talking points. At least it's amusing.

Unfortunately, the truth isn't so salacious. Cassuto, at the request of prosecutors, allowed the dog to be brought into chambers (instead of open court), for the sole purpose of seeing if the dog would react in the presence of it's owner's alleged killer.

No questions, no testimony, no talking to the dog. Oh yeah, and no judicial review, or mistrial.

This post has been edited by MacRoadie: Feb 21 2010, 06:21 PM

[Old Runner Guy]

New Public Strategies contract ORG?

I love the "talks to dogs" talking points. At least it's amusing.

Unfortunately, the truth isn't so salacious. Cassuto, at the request of prosecutors, allowed the dog to be brought into chambers (instead of open court), for the sole purpose of seeing if the dog would react in the presence of it's owner's alleged killer.

No questions, no testimony, no talking to the dog. Oh yeah, and no judicial review, or mistrial.

Pretty close to what happened. Try this ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...urder-case.html

The dog was in the flat at the time of the death.

During a preliminary hearing in the city, the pet was led into the witness box by a vet.

A suspect in the case was presented to the dog, to see how it reacted.

It is said to have ‘barked furiously’.

The aim was to decide if there was sufficient evidence to launch a full murder inquiry.

A decision on the case is pending.

The legal first took place in the Paris suburb of Nanterre, with controversial French judge Thomas Cassuto praising the animal for his ‘exemplary behaviour and invaluable assistance.’

During the hearing a court clerk was asked to ‘record all of the dog’s barks’ and to note ‘its general behaviour throughout the cross examination’.

A spokesman for the Palais de Justice in Paris confirmed that the Nanterre case was the first time a dog had appeared as a witness in criminal proceedings in France.

He said he was ‘almost certain’ it was also a world first.

This post has been edited by Old Runner Guy: Feb 21 2010, 06:29 PM