Floyd Landis: guilty

jimmythecuckoo

has there been an official reaction from Oscar as yet?

Bronzie

LangerDan wrote:

The ruling states that the ban commences from the end of January this year (when he voluntarily withdrew from competition) and Floyd can return on 29th Jan 2009.

But the ProTour charter doesn't allow banned riders to ride for a ProTour team for 4 years from the start of their ban, so while Landis could ride for a Continental Div 1 team from 2009, he shouldn't be able to get into a ProTour team until 2011.......................that's assuming there is a ProTour next year, let alone 2011!

Kléber

The ban seems irrelevant. Landis's name is ruined, he's a figure of ridicule now: a cheat and liar who has been exposed to the whole world.

The only redemptive path is to come forth and tell the whole truth, to really explain what happened and who else was involved. You'd like to think his Mennonite upbringing would make him the one to come out and tell the truth, most pros seek refuge behind bold excuses (my dog was sick, my mother in law needs EPO) but he could know the value of honesty. But I won't hold my breath, he's been telling lies for too long...

Salsiccia

iainf72 wrote:

And the findings PDF here

http://www.velonews.com/media/LandisDecision.pdf

Not for the fainthearted.

Damn right it ain't.

But I did read some of it, and one of the things that I was confused about was this bit:

'The Panel is in no way making a determination regarding the credibility of Mr.
LeMond’s testimony for his cross-examination was inchoate when he was
dismissed by the Panel as a witness for refusing to answer questions ruled to
have been proper cross-examination.'

What questions did LeMond refuse to answer?

iainf72

Salsiccia wrote:

What questions did LeMond refuse to answer?

A question about Armstrong - His lawyer instructed him not to answer.

I think there were some other but I recall the LA one.

Kléber

It's not over. Landis could now approach the Court of Arbitration in Sport for a final chance.

His lawyers must be in ecstasy, for despite failing miserably, they've already made hundreds of thousands from this sorry matter and now there's a chance to make even more.

DaveyL

iainf72 wrote:

And the findings PDF here

http://www.velonews.com/media/LandisDecision.pdf

Not for the fainthearted.

Thanks for this - fascinating stuff, to see the bare bones of the analyses, GC traces and all.

iainf72

Oscar comments

http://uk.reuters.com/article/sportsNew ... sportsNews

flattythehurdler

I think the whole thing is very sad actually. I doubt many of the top ten were clean, and his attack was an outsanding and brave one. I actually think he is one of the nicer people in the peleton, though if he did allow his lawyer to threaten lemonde in this way it is disgraceful. Time to come clean and name manes though really.

Mark Alexander

about time too.

dennisn

Well I guess I'll weigh in on the Floyd thingy too.
Seems I weigh in on everything else. So, most of the people writting in about the"Floyd"
thingy know everything there is to know about the whole thing. Whether he's guilty or
not, what he was and / or is thinking about what he did or didn't do, how he did it or
didn't do it(if he didn't) or (if he did), why he did it(if he did). Heck, most people are sure that there know the when's, why's, and the whatfor's. I challenge anyone writting to
this forum to truthfully tell me that they know Floyd personally, that they know anything
at all about him, except what they have read in various cycling rags, that they actually
saw him "Shoot Up" whatever it was he's supposed to have taken, that they have visited the "Lab" that put out the results and found it secure in all ways. I believe the people screaming the loudest for his head have probably never seen him is person, let alone
have any insider information. Did he or didn't he? Only Floyd knows. Not you, not me,
pretty much no one. Just one question. Why all the "he got what he deserved hatred"?
Shouldn't have a thing to do with you your love of cycling. I mean, he got what he deserved, right? That should clear your conscience. So get out and ride.

Dennis Noward

Toledo, Ohio

Monty Dog

Floyd chose to make it trial by media, so we're only affording him what he wanted - he decided to post his defence on the internet and openly canvassed for donations and support. Guess that makes you one of the people that donated to 'Floyd's fund' or paid for a signature at his personal appearances? By your comments, you sound as though you still aren't prepared to accept the truth or the matter, the somewhat compelling physical evidence - or is there still a conspiracy that contrived to 'spike' his samples with exogenous T?

graemeH

That PDF was interesting.

Point 240 said that the analysis "should" avoid interferences, but as interferences are the things that give false positive results I would have thought it better to say that the analysis "must" avoid interferences. Thye panel dismissed this becuase the word "must" would only apply in a research lab or in a criminal case. I believe that the word "must" must be used in any analytical procdure if you want the right result and not just any result.

The chromatography is criticised over and over again, even called "horrible" - and on this basis a man is branded a liar, cheat and loses his job? How much more of a criminal case could it be?

I can't stand bad analytical chemisty.

I'm not saying he's innocent - just commenting on a flawed procedure for testing that may end up convicting perfectly innocent riders.

DaveyL

The IRMS traces look OK to me.

DaveyL

I haven't had a chance to read through all of the pdf - what does the sample prep involve? Does it say, or does anyone know, what exactly they do to the urine sample before it is injected into the instrument?

dennisn

Monty Dog wrote:

Floyd chose to make it trial by media, so we're only affording him what he wanted - he decided to post his defence on the internet and openly canvassed for donations and support. Guess that makes you one of the people that donated to 'Floyd's fund' or paid for a signature at his personal appearances? By your comments, you sound as though you still aren't prepared to accept the truth or the matter, the somewhat compelling physical evidence - or is there still a conspiracy that contrived to 'spike' his samples with exogenous T?

Look at it this way MD. Do I believe he did "something"? Sure, I may be an idiot to most people but I'm no fool. When you think about it he pretty much had to do "something".
He had a bad day and lost a lot of time. So it's either get back that time or lose the Tour.
If he doesn't do anything he loses. So he does the deed knowing that he may get caught,
but then again he may not get found out, in which case he wins the Tour. As he has already lost he has nothing more to lose and everything to gain by doing the "deed".
It's almost win win for him. If he does get caught all he has to do is deny, deny, deny
and hope for the best. Plenty of racers out there that would do the same. In any case
it doesn't really bother me and I'll proably go out and get in a nice ride tonight, sleep in tomorrow(Saturday) and continue on with my life.

Dennis Noward

Toledo, Ohio

drenkrom

Let's use our brains instead of blurting out the spin from the guys who's side we're on. OK, so let's assume the Landis Powerpoint defense is 100% correct and all the inconsistencies they underlined really took place. That still in no way demonstrates how the sample came back positive. There is a test to detect levels of testosterone. If you muck it up, the levels of testosterone and epistestosterone could be affected separately. That means the T:E ratio could have been wrong. At 11:1, I sure hope it was!

But the second test detects exogenous testosterone. If you screw that one up, the odds are ridiculously stacked to the result that the test will be inconclusive, hence Landis is home free. The odds a complete screw-up of that test would result in detection of exogenous testosterone when there is none are about the same as those of me getting out of work tonight to find a naked Lance Armstrong licking a bunny between the ears in the middle of the road. Not very likely. Errors here would realistically make a sample with exogenous testosterone come back negative, not the other way round. This is what two members on the panel seem to have understood.

Mistakes were made, but from accepting that fact to accepting that those errors resulted in a false conviction is a huge leap of faith. I personally limit the faith I have in pro athletes. And I've been proven right on that decision time and again.

dennisn

drenkrom wrote:

Let's use our brains instead of blurting out the spin from the guys who's side we're on. OK, so let's assume the Landis Powerpoint defense is 100% correct and all the inconsistencies they underlined really took place. That still in no way demonstrates how the sample came back positive. There is a test to detect levels of testosterone. If you muck it up, the levels of testosterone and epistestosterone could be affected separately. That means the T:E ratio could have been wrong. At 11:1, I sure hope it was!

But the second test detects exogenous testosterone. If you screw that one up, the odds are ridiculously stacked to the result that the test will be inconclusive, hence Landis is home free. The odds a complete screw-up of that test would result in detection of exogenous testosterone when there is none are about the same as those of me getting out of work tonight to find a naked Lance Armstrong licking a bunny between the ears in the middle of the road. Not very likely. Errors here would realistically make a sample with exogenous testosterone come back negative, not the other way round. This is what two members on the panel seem to have understood.

Mistakes were made, but from accepting that fact to accepting that those errors resulted in a false conviction is a huge leap of faith. I personally limit the faith I have in pro athletes. And I've been proven right on that decision time and again.

Those last two sentences say it all.

Dennis Noward
Toledo, Ohio

iainf72

drenkrom wrote:

Mistakes were made, but from accepting that fact to accepting that those errors resulted in a false conviction is a huge leap of faith. I personally limit the faith I have in pro athletes. And I've been proven right on that decision time and again.

It could be those mistakes led to a valid conviction - Like the T:E ratio test being performed badly resulted in the 11:1, which in turn resulted in them doing the IRMS.

So they might have "lucked out" We'll just never know. If that is what happened it's actually kind of funny.

sonicred007

Anton de Lacey wrote:

Hope Óscar Pereiro can get some recompense for loss of potential earnings .
Read :I hope he sues the cheating b@stard

Who was second the Bjarn Riis? What of their earnings over the next twelve months? No one , and quite right too, is calling for compennsation there

Cycling has to correct itself and get better, not seek retribution at every turn - it's been full of drug taking cheats for years, not just recently. The testing was just not clever or rigorous enough to catch them

iainf72

sonicred007 wrote:

Who was second the Bjarn Riis? What of their earnings over the next twelve months? No one , and quite right too, is calling for compennsation there

Coz that was Ullrich who was his team mate and part of the Telekom doping machine.

I recall reading Oscar saying last year he still considers Floyd a friend.

iainf72

I find it slightly worrying that the LNDD haven't said anything along the lines of "We'll take the reports comments on board and make sure it doesn't happen again"

Instead it's things like

LNDD laboratory director Jacques de Ceaurriz said that he was unhappy with the criticism his organisation had been dealt. "We took a lot of flak," he told AP. "It was a little exaggerated. Things could have been handled better, without attacking the laboratory."

dave_1

I'm glad Landis has been done..yet another signal to the pros that they can be caught. 1 year of the 2 year ban shopuld be spent in jail as Landis has messed with so many others cyclists employment prospects...he should be sued into bankruptcy. Surely the time has come for legal action by riders unions or whomever to get compensation. Am also a bit annoyed that this chap who managed Landis at Phonak..Lelangue..whoever he is or was...is now joining a new BMC team as a DS...this Lelangue fellow should be kept away from bike races until he's been on the witness stand in a criminal case and forced under oath to explain what he knows...no longer should a team director be able to walk away from a doping scandal

top_bhoy

There's probably so many at the doping game that they'd be counter suing for years as it would open a huge can of worms due to some riders spilling the beans and yet having no real proof on their colleagues. Maybe the pro cyclists association would rather keep a tight lid on all of this and use gentle persuasion to stop the dopingl!

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

I'm glad Landis has been done..yet another signal to the pros that they can be caught. 1 year of the 2 year ban shopuld be spent in jail as Landis has messed with so many others cyclists employment prospects...he should be sued into bankruptcy. Surely the time has come for legal action by riders unions or whomever to get compensation.

I think it's best left alone. If you took a doping case to a court of law I'm pretty certain they wouldn't convict.

Maybe criminalising it is a good idea but if so the testing and labs need to up their game or people will just walk.

If Landis did appeal, the word is they wouldn't stop at CAS. They'd take it outside of the ADA system and I reckon that would be a whole lot of mess. Personaly I hope it's just left to lie.