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.

The irony is that the asthmatic Pereiro is now the Tour Champion. Truly one of the most undeserving and unnotable Tour winners of recent memory.

what more undeserving than Landis ?

I thought this summed proceedings well:

In the end, the panel saved its harshest criticism for Landis, who it said essentially tried to muddle the evidence and embarrass the French lab, and continued on that course even after the evidence was shown not to exist.
"Appelant's experts crossed the line, acting for the most part as advocates for the Appelant's cause, and not as scientists objectively assisting the Panel in the search for truth," the decision read.Obviously I don't know if Floyd is a sinner or a saint, but I did listen to the live webcast of the part of the hearing where they were talking about the operation of the lab.

I've done mass spec work. I did my work on Nuclide (model 12-90 ???) systems. They're different machines but the basics are the same and the theory of operation is easy to understand.

What the lab admits to having done was spectacularly wrong. Their defense of why it was OK to have left the lifting ring on the machine was pathetic.

I don't know what the data would have shown if they had operated the machine properly, but their results are worthless.

It's ridiculous that they formatted the hard drives on the machine. That's a really bad sign. It gives the impression that they know that they totally flubbed the measurements.

I found the opinions of the Dr. who specialized in treating patients with testosterone deficiencies interesting. He said that there was no know process by which the testosterone could be metabolized out of the blood within one day. So where did it go?

The lab says, he's clean on day one, he's dirty on day two, and he's clean on day three.

That data doesn't make any sense at all.

Again, I don't know if cheated or not but the data stinks.

Obviously I don't know if Floyd is a sinner or a saint, but I did listen to the live webcast of the part of the hearing where they were talking about the operation of the lab.

I've done mass spec work. I did my work on Nuclide (model 12-90 ???) systems. They're different machines but the basics are the same and the theory of operation is easy to understand.

What the lab admits to having done was spectacularly wrong. Their defense of why it was OK to have left the lifting ring on the machine was pathetic.

I don't know what the data would have shown if they had operated the machine properly, but their results are worthless.

It's ridiculous that they formatted the hard drives on the machine. That's a really bad sign. It gives the impression that they know that they totally flubbed the measurements.

I found the opinions of the Dr. who specialized in treating patients with testosterone deficiencies interesting. He said that there was no know process by which the testosterone could be metabolized out of the blood within one day. So where did it go?

The lab says, he's clean on day one, he's dirty on day two, and he's clean on day three.

That data doesn't make any sense at all.

Again, I don't know if cheated or not but the data stinks.
He cheated, there, now you know.

Undeserving? He was the highest placed rider who didn't fail a drug test, and he earned his spot. Don't see what's undeserving about that.

Sure he got lucky with that long break, but so what? That's racing, and kudos to him for having the balls to go for it when he could've just given up and rode along in the peloton - wasn't his fault that no one chased.

And how is it really any different than Landis' St 17, anyway? Landis gained time back because no one chased, so if he - Landis - did end up with the win, would you say that was equally undeserving?

And kudos to Pereiro for riding his guts out afterwards to hold on to second, which eventually gave him the win.

Although having said that, I don't think Pereiro was any cleaner than Landis, mind you:rolleyes:You said it in your post - he got lucky.

Remember, he got his time on a relatively benign stage (a stage where McEwen brought in the peloton in a bunch sprint) where his breakaway group put on 30 minutes over the peloton. He went on to lose almost all that time in the following days. Hardly the mark of a Tour champion.

He 'won' a Tour where the favorites (Basso, Ulrich, Vino, etc..) were not allowed to start.

He did test postive for a banned substance, Salbutamol (you must have missed my asthma reference) but was granted a retroactive TUE - sound familiar?! I find it interesting that people with such profound disabilities are able to win the most elite of all sporting events.:rolleyes:

Landis' breakaway was much different. First, it was a solo break. Second, he was marked. Everyone let him go thinking he would blow up, but he didn't - really an incredible feat. Pereiro was not marked at the time and was let go in a group breakaway because no one saw him as a credible threat. There is a huge difference between the two breaks, regardless of your (or my) feeling for Landis.

Do I think Landis is more deserving? Well...I think so. Look at the podium or even the top 10 and please tell me which of those guys wasn't doping. Does Jan 'deserve' a Jersey for 1996 now that Riis admitted doping? Is Ulrich more 'deserving'? I don't think so.

Let me make it clear, I'm not arguing that Landis should get to keep the Jersey or that Pereiro shouldn't get it. Pereiro SHOULD get the yellow jersey - the rules say so, and yes, the rules are important. I just can't say he's more 'deserving' in the absolutely corrupted system these guys raced under.

I don't fault Landis so much for the doping violation in a system where nearly everyone doped, but for the way he conducted himself once he was caught.

Really, what it comes down to is that the 2006 Tour was one of the absolute worst ever, certainly the worst I've seen in the past 20 years. The major players were absent and you were left watching the second stringers fight it out. It was 'bush league' cycling.

So...unnotable, certainly. Undeserving, maybe a little harsh, but certainly debatable.

I still like FLandis. Yeah, I'm a hypocrite. I like his attitude. With exploits like trading a yellow jersy for a beer on the way down from Alpe d'Huez, he would have been hugely popular in the U.S. among cycling fans. He was a much warmer and wilder personality than the cold, arrogant meanness of Armstrong.

He played this wrong. Hamilton should have served as an example that the UCI was willing to scapegoat select individuals and that the consequences of fighting it out to the end and losing would be severe. With the tip offs that Postal was getting about random testing, he must have known that the UCI was corrupt.

His wiki defense backfired. He would have been better served by making his initial denials and then letting the process go forward quietly. If his defense team could find a serious error then he would eventually skate on the charge, but if not he would not have been left backed into a corner as he is now.

If he really wanted to go public, an attack on the anti-doping apparatus was a bad target. He should have targeted the systemic nature of doping in pro cycling. Saying that he was not doing anything his rivals were not doing is more believable than claiming he didn't do it, especially since most of his rivals had been prevented from racing the Tour a month earlier. It is also a more sympathetic position.

FLandis must be angry as hell. Aside from seeing the UCI spend money to defend Armstrong's dope use, they are now assuring the public that Contador is clean. Pereiro was on the same doping program as Landis the year before, yet he gets the title that was rightfully won by FLandis. Judging by what happened to Hamilton, the UCI will black list Landis in europe.

The starting date of his suspension is bullshit. He gave up several hundred thousand dollars by not collecting post-Tour race appearance fees. There appears to be no clear rules on when a suspension starts. It does not seem to be too hard to make a simple rule that it starts after the last race you did after testing positive. He is lucky that CAS dismissed the idea of starting the suspension after the 2007 PB100.

Maybe I'm just vindictive, but if I were FLandis and the UCI was doing whatever it could to prevent me from working the last few years of my career, I'd blow the lid off of Postal, Phonak, and everyone else I knew anything about. He's already probably near bankruptcy. He is judgement proof if he gets sued for libel. It is also the only way to salvation.

I still like FLandis. Yeah, I'm a hypocrite. I like his attitude. With exploits like trading a yellow jersy for a beer on the way down from Alpe d'Huez, he would have been hugely popular in the U.S. among cycling fans. He was a much warmer and wilder personality than the cold, arrogant meanness of Armstrong.

He played this wrong. Hamilton should have served as an example that the UCI was willing to scapegoat select individuals and that the consequences of fighting it out to the end and losing would be severe. With the tip offs that Postal was getting about random testing, he must have known that the UCI was corrupt.

His wiki defense backfired. He would have been better served by making his initial denials and then letting the process go forward quietly. If his defense team could find a serious error then he would eventually skate on the charge, but if not he would not have been left backed into a corner as he is now.

If he really wanted to go public, an attack on the anti-doping apparatus was a bad target. He should have targeted the systemic nature of doping in pro cycling. Saying that he was not doing anything his rivals were not doing is more believable than claiming he didn't do it, especially since most of his rivals had been prevented from racing the Tour a month earlier. It is also a more sympathetic position.

FLandis must be angry as hell. Aside from seeing the UCI spend money to defend Armstrong's dope use, they are now assuring the public that Contador is clean. Pereiro was on the same doping program as Landis the year before, yet he gets the title that was rightfully won by FLandis. Judging by what happened to Hamilton, the UCI will black list Landis in europe.

The starting date of his suspension is bullshit. He gave up several hundred thousand dollars by not collecting post-Tour race appearance fees. There appears to be no clear rules on when a suspension starts. It does not seem to be too hard to make a simple rule that it starts after the last race you did after testing positive. He is lucky that CAS dismissed the idea of starting the suspension after the 2007 PB100.

Maybe I'm just vindictive, but if I were FLandis and the UCI was doing whatever it could to prevent me from working the last few years of my career, I'd blow the lid off of Postal, Phonak, and everyone else I knew anything about. He's already probably near bankruptcy. He is judgement proof if he gets sued for libel. It is also the only way to salvation.Bro - that is what YOU WANT to happen IMHO. You forget that 95% of Landis' friends are in pro cycling. No matter what would eventuate from his blowing the lid off doping... every single one of those 95% of friends would hate his guts for the rest of his life. And judging by Joe Papp's case study... the other 5%, his family and friends... and most of the general public as well... would even think less of him IMO... except for Bro Deal and a few others fighting doping in cycling.

A lot of these cycling pros think that doping is okay IMO. It's just the attitude of the non-cycling-professional public that they have to watch out for.

If guys are going to come out against the omerta... there has to be a bigger incentive... with less downside.

Side note - The omerta's existence is proof positive that the majority dope. It couldn't exist if the majority were clean.

I still like FLandis. Yeah, I'm a hypocrite. . .
You raise a lot of good points Bro. I agree with a lot of what you said. I think Cranky's right about the practicality of outing the others though . . .

Bro - that is what YOU WANT to happen IMHO. You forget that 95% of Landis' friends are in pro cycling. No matter what would eventuate from his blowing the lid off doping... every single one of those 95% of friends would hate his guts for the rest of his life. And judging by Joe Papp's case study... the other 5%, his family and friends... and most of the general public as well... would even think less of him IMO... except for Bro Deal and a few others fighting doping in cycling.
What friends in cycling? Where are all of Hamilton's friends? They sure did not help Tyler get back into the top level racing scene. FLandis is likely to end up a pariah just like Tyler is. Maybe he can get lucky and find a nutter like Michael Ball to give him a contract, but he'll still be racing in the backwaters of cycling for an owner with anger management problems who might flake out on his contract at any moment. Which friend will give him a job back in europe?

The number of people in the U.S. who would be personally affected by FLandis telling all is extremely small. We're are talking like half a dozen people. Will it really matter if Leipheimer does not send him an X-mas card?

What friends in cycling? Where are all of Hamilton's friends? They sure did not help Tyler get back into the top level racing scene. FLandis is likely to end up a pariah just like Tyler is. Maybe he can get lucky and find a nutter like Michael Ball to give him a contract, but he'll still be racing in the backwaters of cycling for an owner with anger management problems who might flake out on his contract at any moment. Which friend will give him a job back in europe?

The number of people in the U.S. who would be personally affected by FLandis telling all is extremely small. We're are talking like half a dozen people. Will it really matter if Leipheimer does not send him an X-mas card?Pariah amongst employers due to his bad publicity/doping verdict. Not a pariah amongst fellow pros for risking everything to take on the UCI and losing.

Not a pariah amongst fellow pros for risking everything to take on the UCI and losing.
What are those pros going to do for him?

There appears to have been a change in the last three or four years. Before a rider could serve his doping suspension and be welcomed back. Now a rider who gets caught is treated like a leper. Perhaps the signing of Basso indicates that there is hope for someone like FLandis. He did demonstrate that he can win the big one. But I am not betting on it. I think it is likely that Basso will prove to be a special case just like Contador and Valverde are special cases.

What are those pros going to do for him?Fair point. But we rehash that whole Flandis/human psychology argument.

At every stage of the strategy... Flandis was focussed on getting out of the shit-hole and resuming his career unblemished. If he had a crystal ball that foretold this future... he might have adjusted his strategy.

Why do humans risk the house on the slim chance to get out of the shit-hole? Ask gamblers anonymous. Same reason why a little Barings dork in Singapore ended up costing Barings almost one billion sterling and forcing the company's sale for a dollar. One keeps raising the bet in increments.... and your prior decisions influence your continued risk taking, until you are betting your livelihood in an effort to keep your dignity (or the chance to return to your prior-to-the-scandal state). About-facing and admitting he doped would have brought untold scorn half way through the process.

You said it in your post - he got lucky.
Remember, he got his time on a relatively benign stage (a stage where McEwen brought in the peloton in a bunch sprint) where his breakaway group put on 30 minutes over the peloton. He went on to lose almost all that time in the following days. Hardly the mark of a Tour champion.

Not quite.

Pereiro was sitting in amongst the GC contendors until stage 11.
Stage 10 GC results Landis was the best place GC rider at 4:45 down on the Yellow Jersey. Pereiro was only 6:42 down on the Yellow.

Pereiro blew out on Stage 11 loosing 26mins (a HC cat, followed by 4 off cat 1 climbs, with hilltop finish). The 3rd climb out of the 5 Pereiro went backwards and finished the day 26mins behind Landis. Now sitting 28mins back on the GC.
Stage 13, (a typical breakaway type stage) Pereiro got into a break with Voight, Chavanel, Quinziato & Grivko.
Pereiro was the highest in the GC of the riders in the break.
Landis & Phonak either screwed it up or where happy to loose the Yellow Jersey. They allowed Pereiro to now be a major threat.
Stage 15, Pereiro drops 2:50 to Landis given Landis the race lead.
Stage 16, Landis Blows up and looses approx 8mins. Pereiro retakes the lead.
Stage 17, Landis goes it solo to regain lost time. Pereiro holds the lead by 30secs.
Stage 19 TT, Landis retakes the lead.

Pereiro deserves the 06 TDF win.
He still had to beat Kloden, Sastre, Evans & Menchov.

At every stage of the strategy... Flandis was focussed on getting out of the shit-hole and resuming his career unblemished. If he had a crystal ball that foretold this future... he might have adjusted his strategy.
I think FLandis concentrated on saving his TdF victory rather than resuming his career. It is understandable. With his hip he did not know if he would be able to continue as a pro.

If he just wanted to resume his career he could have made a deal with McQuaid. McQuaid called FLandis, told him he was a good guy and just had the misfortune of getting caught. Right then he probably could have struck some sort of understanding that if he rolled over his return would not be opposed by the UCI.

Not quite.

Pereiro was sitting in amongst the GC contendors until stage 11.
Stage 10 GC results Landis was the best place GC rider at 4:45 down on the Yellow Jersey. Pereiro was only 6:42 down on the Yellow.

Pereiro blew out on Stage 11 loosing 26mins (a HC cat, followed by 4 off cat 1 climbs, with hilltop finish). The 3rd climb out of the 5 Pereiro went backwards and finished the day 26mins behind Landis. Now sitting 28mins back on the GC.
Stage 13, (a typical breakaway type stage) Pereiro got into a break with Voight, Chavanel, Quinziato & Grivko.
Pereiro was the highest in the GC of the riders in the break.
Landis & Phonak either screwed it up or where happy to loose the Yellow Jersey. They allowed Pereiro to now be a major threat.
Stage 15, Pereiro drops 2:50 to Landis given Landis the race lead.
Stage 16, Landis Blows up and looses approx 8mins. Pereiro retakes the lead.
Stage 17, Landis goes it solo to regain lost time. Pereiro holds the lead by 30secs.
Stage 19 TT, Landis retakes the lead.

Pereiro deserves the 06 TDF win.
He still had to beat Kloden, Sastre, Evans & Menchov.Your detailed race analysis helps to illustrate my point that the 2006 tour was 'bush league' racing. The fact that breakaways like Pereiro's and Landis' even happened is because the true contenders were never in the race. If Ullrich, Basso, and Vino were racing, do you think these guys even had a shot? As to whether he is a 'deserving' winner there are multiple other points I made in the post you fail to address.

I recognize that he is the official winner and has the Jersey. I also recognize that the race he 'won' was unfortunately corrupted before it even began. The same holds true for last year's Tour, and with Astana's ban will hold true for this year as well. Such is the state of Pro Cycling. In a race full of cheaters, who is most deserving of a win?

I think FLandis concentrated on saving his TdF victory rather than resuming his career. It is understandable. With his hip he did not know if he would be able to continue as a pro.

If he just wanted to resume his career he could have made a deal with McQuaid. McQuaid called FLandis, told him he was a good guy and just had the misfortune of getting caught. Right then he probably could have struck some sort of understanding that if he rolled over his return would not be opposed by the UCI.Again... fair point. Although I am not sure that it was all about the TdF. Spending the rest of your life as a convicted doper is not nearly so dignified as spending it as a retired cyclist who never tested positive. Professional sports people imagine basking in their achievements in their retirement. Perhaps fallaciously... but it is a common psychology in my experience. Being a convicted doper is a hard label to carry around for the rest of your life... no matter how much McQuaid likes you more. But the TdF victory would have been a huge obsession like you say... and qualifies as a huge achievement to bask in. He seems like he was trying to prove he could match Lance for much of his road career... IMO.

Is this McQuaid-Landis conversation you mention public knowledge? It seems to be not a conversation that the UCI would like to made public is it? Basically... You're a good guy doper who just got unlucky by getting caught.

Where did this come from? Landis' book? Not doubting it... I just missed it.

Again... fair point. Although I am not sure that it was all about the TdF. Spending the rest of your life as a convicted doper is not nearly so dignified as spending it as a retired cyclist who never tested positive. Professional sports people imagine basking in their achievements in their retirement. Perhaps fallaciously... but it is a common psychology in my experience. Being a convicted doper is a hard label to carry around for the rest of your life... no matter how much McQuaid likes you more. But the TdF victory would have been a huge obsession like you say... and qualifies as a huge achievement to bask in. He seems like he was trying to prove he could match Lance for much of his road career... IMO.

Is this McQuaid-Landis conversation you mention public knowledge? It seems to be not a conversation that the UCI would like to made public is it? Basically... You're a good guy doper who just got unlucky by getting caught.

Where did this come from? Landis' book? Not doubting it... I just missed it.
It is in Landis' book, but I seem to recall Floyd talking about it before the book. I just googled this:

“I’m sure you weren’t doing anything that everyone else wasn’t doing,” McQuaid said, according to the book. “You’re just the unlucky one who got caught.” Landis says McQuaid advised him to “accept a suspension because there’s no way you can win.” When Landis said he would defend himself through the arbitration process established under the World Anti-Doping Code – a system that heavily favors the prosecutors – McQuaid replied, “You’ll end up penniless.” Indeed, Landis has said that his defense has cost nearly $2 million to date.

It is in Landis' book, but I seem to recall Floyd talking about it before the book. I just googled this:

“I’m sure you weren’t doing anything that everyone else wasn’t doing,” McQuaid said, according to the book. “You’re just the unlucky one who got caught.” Landis says McQuaid advised him to “accept a suspension because there’s no way you can win.” When Landis said he would defend himself through the arbitration process established under the World Anti-Doping Code – a system that heavily favors the prosecutors – McQuaid replied, “You’ll end up penniless.” Indeed, Landis has said that his defense has cost nearly $2 million to date.Thanks. I never read that. For some reason I believe Landis... except when it comes to his claims regarding his doping.

If it did occur... it seems to lessen the probability of any UCI involvement in tripping the initial T/E ratio test. Unless McQuaid and H-V are playing good cop/bad cop so that Landis does what they want him to.

I still maintain that Landis' gripe is that he feels he shouldn't have tripped that initial test... and that something funny must have happened to produce that result. Not that he didn't dope. He just had to make sure he didn't fail the T/E test. Not the IRMS test.. which isn't used unless you fail the first screening.

These guys really acquire the attitude IMO that as long as they don't test positive... and haven't added anything that is above limits... then they are legal. Doping within the legal limits is fine to many of the pros it seems.

Just my 2c again.

I still like FLandis. Yeah, I'm a hypocrite. I like his attitude. With exploits like trading a yellow jersy for a beer on the way down from Alpe d'Huez, he would have been hugely popular in the U.S. among cycling fans. He was a much warmer and wilder personality than the cold, arrogant meanness of Armstrong.

He played this wrong. Hamilton should have served as an example that the UCI was willing to scapegoat select individuals and that the consequences of fighting it out to the end and losing would be severe. With the tip offs that Postal was getting about random testing, he must have known that the UCI was corrupt.

His wiki defense backfired. He would have been better served by making his initial denials and then letting the process go forward quietly. If his defense team could find a serious error then he would eventually skate on the charge, but if not he would not have been left backed into a corner as he is now.

If he really wanted to go public, an attack on the anti-doping apparatus was a bad target. He should have targeted the systemic nature of doping in pro cycling. Saying that he was not doing anything his rivals were not doing is more believable than claiming he didn't do it, especially since most of his rivals had been prevented from racing the Tour a month earlier. It is also a more sympathetic position.

FLandis must be angry as hell. Aside from seeing the UCI spend money to defend Armstrong's dope use, they are now assuring the public that Contador is clean. Pereiro was on the same doping program as Landis the year before, yet he gets the title that was rightfully won by FLandis. Judging by what happened to Hamilton, the UCI will black list Landis in europe.

The starting date of his suspension is bullshit. He gave up several hundred thousand dollars by not collecting post-Tour race appearance fees. There appears to be no clear rules on when a suspension starts. It does not seem to be too hard to make a simple rule that it starts after the last race you did after testing positive. He is lucky that CAS dismissed the idea of starting the suspension after the 2007 PB100.

Maybe I'm just vindictive, but if I were FLandis and the UCI was doing whatever it could to prevent me from working the last few years of my career, I'd blow the lid off of Postal, Phonak, and everyone else I knew anything about. He's already probably near bankruptcy. He is judgement proof if he gets sued for libel. It is also the only way to salvation.

Some good points.

Hard to know where Landis might go from here.

Others have suggested that he can in fact return after he serves his ban.
But unlike Millar, Landis doesn't appear (so far) to have accepted that he did dope and I think the cycling authorities may have a problem with a rider, having found to have doped, taking his place in the peloton while still claiming that he is innocent.
That would be a very big problem for the UCI.

Of course, this situation might suit Landis.
He may feel aggrieved and he may want to try to embarrass the UCI and cycling authorities by "just being there".

The other option is for him to admit and accept his guilt.
And perhaps consider blowing the lid on Phonak, USPS/Discovery : what has he got to lose?
Having been put through the grinder since stage 16 of the 2006 TDF : having seen his reputation destroyed, it is hard to see how things could be worse for him.

I agree with your point - the sport protected certain riders.
Landis, Basso and others assumed that they too would be afforded the same protection.
They failed to read the signs.
The Festina effect started the winds of change.
Manzano, Pantani, Puerto etc accelerated that change.
Hardwire instinct to deny everything cannot resist that change.
Landis should have recognised this - if only for himself.

It is in Landis' book, but I seem to recall Floyd talking about it before the book. I just googled this:

“I’m sure you weren’t doing anything that everyone else wasn’t doing,” McQuaid said, according to the book. “You’re just the unlucky one who got caught.” Landis says McQuaid advised him to “accept a suspension because there’s no way you can win.” When Landis said he would defend himself through the arbitration process established under the World Anti-Doping Code – a system that heavily favors the prosecutors – McQuaid replied, “You’ll end up penniless.” Indeed, Landis has said that his defense has cost nearly $2 million to date.

If Pat is good at anything (and I respectfully suggest that he isn't), it is his ability to read the politics of the sport.
McQuaid is that type - useless at actually doing anything but good at looking
at how the politics of a situation play out and good at looking at how to extracate himself (and the position he occupies) with minimal damage (to him and the position he occupies).

Not quite.

Pereiro was sitting in amongst the GC contendors until stage 11.
Stage 10 GC results Landis was the best place GC rider at 4:45 down on the Yellow Jersey. Pereiro was only 6:42 down on the Yellow.

Pereiro blew out on Stage 11 loosing 26mins (a HC cat, followed by 4 off cat 1 climbs, with hilltop finish). The 3rd climb out of the 5 Pereiro went backwards and finished the day 26mins behind Landis. Now sitting 28mins back on the GC.
Stage 13, (a typical breakaway type stage) Pereiro got into a break with Voight, Chavanel, Quinziato & Grivko.
Pereiro was the highest in the GC of the riders in the break.
Landis & Phonak either screwed it up or where happy to loose the Yellow Jersey. They allowed Pereiro to now be a major threat.
Stage 15, Pereiro drops 2:50 to Landis given Landis the race lead.
Stage 16, Landis Blows up and looses approx 8mins. Pereiro retakes the lead.
Stage 17, Landis goes it solo to regain lost time. Pereiro holds the lead by 30secs.
Stage 19 TT, Landis retakes the lead.

Pereiro deserves the 06 TDF win.
He still had to beat Kloden, Sastre, Evans & Menchov.


Also reckons that Pereiro was the best rider in the TDF 2005 and 2006.
He rode a superb 2005 TDF.