Landis' last gasp

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Well, I contributed and here's what I think . . . not surprised at all as to the result and don't really care about my money. Don't feel frauded at all. Unlike most, I went into it assuming that the overwhelmingly vast majority of pro athletes (any sport) dope in some capacity, some more than others and some sports more than others. My contribution had absolutely NOTHING to do with believing or disbelieving Floyd.

I contributed because I thought the challenge of the process needed (and still does) to take place. The process is a complete farce. The politics involved are disgusting. LA skates for at least 7 years while others are now punished. The application of the punishment varies depending on the individual. It is a complete ad hoc application of rules and the sport will not be taken seriously by many people, including myself, until that changes and the processes in place are followed and carried out uniformly no matter the individual (or their personality) behind the positive test.

For these very reasons, I agree wholeheartedly with your perceptions about the TdF 2006. There absolutely is NO winner in my book.

Landis considering his legal options . . . . well, what else CAN he say? I read that to be nothing more than an attempted "save face" clause, when there's nothing else that can really be said, when he was so incredibly vocal about his case and fighting the system every step of the way. I don't in any way think he was even remotely suggesting that he truly believes there might be (or are) additional legal options.

I will however close by saying that the LeMond mess repulsed me really. Ridiculous. Highly offensive. And, awefully damaging to his PR case, which he was so adamant about keeping in the public eye . . .

But, am I sorry I contributed? NO!!!! Hardly. Because I believe I contributed for the right reason . . . to support a challenge of the system, not my hero or any one individual. Floyd just happened to be the case to do it with, with him being the poster child for the cause. A different poster child would have been better, because I think Floyd's naivity coupled with ego and stubborness are a dangerous combination which results in creating more havoc on his case and for his lawyers. But, unfortunately, I didn't pick the candidate for the cause. ;)

I'm suprised that someone who is clearly a bright intelligent person like you, would make a financial contribution to the defence fund of any cyclist facing an action for doping.
Given the recent history of the sport.

I'm suprised that someone who is clearly a bright intelligent person like you, would make a financial contribution to the defence fund of any cyclist facing an action for doping.
Given the recent history of the sport.I'm a scientist and I've done mass spec work but I didn't contribute.

I didn't know how badly the lab had flubbed their work until I listened to the testimony. As far as I can tell their results were worthless.

I can see no excuse for the abysmal quality of the work done by that lab. This kind of incompetence undermines the important work of finding the cheaters and it can ruin the careers of the falsely accused.

I worked for very competent and considerate people. It would not have been possible for me to make those kinds of mistakes (even as an undergraduate research assistant) simply because the people who were training me and supervising/reviewing my work were... well, competent and considerate people.

It's unfortunate but what methods are there for people like us to try to get these labs to get their acts together? We can complain to their funders but we can also contribute to the people who they are testifying against. In an ideal world that wouldn't be my method of choice but maybe it is necessary.

I worked for very competent and considerate people. It would not have been possible for me to make those kinds of mistakes (even as an undergraduate research assistant) simply because the people who were training me and supervising/reviewing my work were... well, competent and considerate people.It seems that the mistakes done were not big enough to dismiss the Landis' testing...
I doubt seriously that the scientists who testified were so incompetent or so dishonnest to sustain it.

I'm a scientist and I've done mass spec work but I didn't contribute.

I didn't know how badly the lab had flubbed their work until I listened to the testimony. As far as I can tell their results were worthless.

I can see no excuse for the abysmal quality of the work done by that lab. This kind of incompetence undermines the important work of finding the cheaters and it can ruin the careers of the falsely accused.Your assessment is contrary to the assessments of the DPF science experts.

Your assessment is contrary to the assessments of the DPF science experts.
There are two sides to this story. Yes, DPF didn't agree with what Simon Davis said but I'm not sure that they're right. The machine simply is not designed to operate with the lifting ring in place.

The way these things work is that the magnetic field bends the thermally ionized gas streaming off of the sample. The amount of bending depends on the geometry of the field. Putting that big metal lifting ring over the magnets messes up the field. That's just fundamentally wrong.

How familiar are you with what Simon Davis said? What do you think of it?

I was watching the streaming coverage of the hearing and I listened to Davis' testimony and to the response from the lab.

Leaving the lifting ring on the machine was just boneheaded I don't expect that the machine could possibly have been within calibration with the ring in place. If someone ran a test that proved that this would work then OK, that's fine; but no one did. I wouldn't have accepted that data in my lab.

I'm a scientist and I've done mass spec work but I didn't contribute.

I didn't know how badly the lab had flubbed their work until I listened to the testimony. As far as I can tell their results were worthless.

I can see no excuse for the abysmal quality of the work done by that lab. This kind of incompetence undermines the important work of finding the cheaters and it can ruin the careers of the falsely accused.

I worked for very competent and considerate people. It would not have been possible for me to make those kinds of mistakes (even as an undergraduate research assistant) simply because the people who were training me and supervising/reviewing my work were... well, competent and considerate people.

It's unfortunate but what methods are there for people like us to try to get these labs to get their acts together? We can complain to their funders but we can also contribute to the people who they are testifying against. In an ideal world that wouldn't be my method of choice but maybe it is necessary.I am a scientist also, and have also done mass spec work, but did not contribute either.

Using the machine with the lifting ring in place has so little effect on the magnetic field as to make the change insignificant in terms of the gas bending off of the sample.

Wow, this science stuff is easy!

I figured you were an attorney, thus the parting shot. A lawyer complaining about litigation....well that's a new one. Seriously, hope work calms down for you and no need to respond. I'll continue to believe my posts are ironclad and irrefutable.
Based on your stated position fscyclist, I'm on YOUR side. That was my point. I DEFEND against all those worthless, greedy lawsuits you referenced. ;) I hate our litigious, finger pointing society as much as you and would love nothing more than to be out a job and have to change careers.

There are two sides to this story. Yes, DPF didn't agree with what Simon Davis said but I'm not sure that they're right. The machine simply is not designed to operate with the lifting ring in place.

The way these things work is that the magnetic field bends the thermally ionized gas streaming off of the sample. The amount of bending depends on the geometry of the field. Putting that big metal lifting ring over the magnets messes up the field. That's just fundamentally wrong.

How familiar are you with what Simon Davis said? What do you think of it?

I was watching the streaming coverage of the hearing and I listened to Davis' testimony and to the response from the lab.

Leaving the lifting ring on the machine was just boneheaded I don't expect that the machine could possibly have been within calibration with the ring in place. If someone ran a test that proved that this would work then OK, that's fine; but no one did. I wouldn't have accepted that data in my lab.Oh, I am very familiar with Mr. Davis' work. In fact, last night over dinner he admitted that his testimony was dubious, and that his conclusions had "dollar signs" attached. I thanked him for buying dinner, and then we went out for drinks and prostitutes.

WOW, this sounding like I know WTF I am talking about is easy!

I'm suprised that someone who is clearly a bright intelligent person like you, would make a financial contribution to the defence fund of any cyclist facing an action for doping.
Given the recent history of the sport.Only in an effort to improve the system. If the labs dot their i's and cross their t's a bit better subsequent to Floyd's case, and the authorities apply the procedures and rules uniformly (which is becoming abundantly clear ain't ever gonna happen) then I think my money did some good.

And, let's be clear here . . . it ain't like I offered up a paycheck or anything. A very minor contribution it was, because I personally would rather spend my money on causes such as curing illnesses and such.

Based on your stated position fscyclist, I'm on YOUR side. That was my point. I DEFEND against all those worthless, greedy lawsuits you referenced. ;) I hate our litigious, finger pointing society as much as you and would love nothing more than to be out a job and have to change careers.I got it...but until you stated you were a corporate defense attorney I didn't know what type of lawyer you were. So now I know you aren't an ambulance chaser, but instead work for 'the man' and spend your time making sure the little guy never has his day in court.;)

Don't take my posts too seriously. They are laced with sarcasm, except when that aren't. I despise those emoticon thingies, but also realize people would understand what I'm saying more often if I used them.

May Floyd Landis join Ben Johnson, Barry Bonds, Marion Jones, etc...as personas non gratas within their respective sports...

If only Floyd had to appear before a grand jury...

Which is exactly why I feel my contribution was to a worthy cause. ;) That's what I was trying to explain before.

Edit: Oh and btw fscyclist, I'm a corporate defense attorney by trade so you're preaching to the choir about American litigation. That's another "cause" I've undertaken. ;) Perhaps that puts my contribution in further perspective for you. Sorry I can't take on the great debate, but work is in overdrive atm (it's 11:15 PM and I'm still working) so I just can't engage in detail with the underlying points.
Cannondale of the fairer sex, if you were really intelligent, you would have understood Landis was not the candidate for change, because his interest was undermined by his doping status.

You cannot be a change agent if you are doped to the eyeballs and then scream "woe is me, see your congressman".

Oh, I am very familiar with Mr. Davis' work. In fact, last night over dinner he admitted that his testimony was dubious, and that his conclusions had "dollar signs" attached. I thanked him for buying dinner, and then we went out for drinks and prostitutes.

WOW, this sounding like I know WTF I am talking about is easy!
I was working for Dr. Kohman at CMU. We were recomputing the halflife of Fe60.

Since you're an expert you'll know that Truman's Emeritus at CMU now but his lab's still over at the Mellon Institue. In fact since you're an expert you'll know all about Dr.K. and why we were working of Fe60.

Funny I never saw you hanging around. You must have been with Wasserburg's crew over at Caltech. With a team that size it's easy to get lost in the shuffle. It's amazing you guys didn't just start at He and keep going until you ran out of elements.

I thought that it was great when I found out that Dr.K. got his name assigned to a minor planet.

I'm sure you were bumbed when you heard about Dr.S. Well, at least he went out prosecting. Gene and Truman sure dug up a lot of space rocks over the years.

If only Floyd had to appear before a grand jury...
He is lucky he didn't. All signs point to him not being smart enough to keep his mouth shut. Why Bonds and Jones did not follow the advice of their lawyers is a mystery.

I was working for Dr. Kohman at CMU. We were recomputing the halflife of Fe60.

Since you're an expert you'll know that Truman's Emeritus at CMU now but his lab's still over at the Mellon Institue. In fact since you're an expert you'll know all about Dr.K. and why we were working of Fe60.

Funny I never saw you hanging around. You must have been with Wasserburg's crew over at Caltech. With a team that size it's easy to get lost in the shuffle. It's amazing you guys didn't just start at He and keep going until you ran out of elements.

I thought that it was great when I found out that Dr.K. got his name assigned to a minor planet.

I'm sure you were bumbed when you heard about Dr.S. Well, at least he went out prosecting. Gene and Truman sure dug up a lot of space rocks over the years.WOW, that is amazing! I was working with Jimmy Snooka at Randolph Community College looking at designing a half-pipe...we are almost like colleagues!

Funny thing about all of this though. Floyd Doped.

WOW, that is amazing! I was working with Jimmy Snooka at Randolph Community College looking at designing a half-pipe...we are almost like colleagues!

Funny thing about all of this though. Floyd Doped.I'm sure it's difficult for you to sit quietly while other people are discussing things you don't understand but that's no reason for you to interrupt their conversations.

There are only so many ways that a person can make a fool of themselves in a discussion like this. You've exhausted your options in that regard.

If you can't follow the discussion then take a time out.

Don't worry buttercup, it's not your fault, we can't all be rocket surgeons.

I'm sure it's difficult for you to sit quietly while other people are discussing things you don't understand but that's no reason for you to interrupt their conversations.

There are only so many ways that a person can make a fool of themselves in a discussion like this. You've exhausted your options in that regard.

If you can't follow the discussion then take a time out.

Don't worry buttercup, it's not your fault, we can't all be rocket surgeons.
Oh, she has a bite too, how cute.

I'm sure it's difficult for you to sit quietly while other people are discussing things you don't understand but that's no reason for you to interrupt their conversations.

There are only so many ways that a person can make a fool of themselves in a discussion like this. You've exhausted your options in that regard.

If you can't follow the discussion then take a time out.

Don't worry buttercup, it's not your fault, we can't all be rocket surgeons.Nice....:cool:

I'm sure it's difficult for you to sit quietly while other people are discussing things you don't understand but that's no reason for you to interrupt their conversations.

There are only so many ways that a person can make a fool of themselves in a discussion like this. You've exhausted your options in that regard.

If you can't follow the discussion then take a time out.

Don't worry buttercup, it's not your fault, we can't all be rocket surgeons...oh and sweetie, you weren't "discussing" anything , you were corresponding...unless you were in the same room talking as well as typing...I guess some rocket surgeons aren't as bright as others...

..oh and sweetie, you weren't "discussing" anything , you were corresponding...unless you were in the same room talking as well as typing...I guess some rocket surgeons aren't as bright as others...You do seem to thrive on exposing your ignorance..

dis·cuss
tr.v. dis·cussed, dis·cuss·ing, dis·cuss·es

To speak with another or others about; talk over.
To examine or consider (a subject) in speech or writing.
discussing. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved July 02, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussing (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussing)