*** SPOILER *** Interesting facts from Landis' book

Although I'm not yet done with Floyd's book, I'm pretty well into the doping allegations section. While I understand that this is his side of the story, I think there are some very important revelations/facts brought out in the book (all of which can be easily checked for validity which makes me trust them to be true, especially since they've not been denied)

Basically, they all center around the idea that the UCI is an organization run by people who believe all the cyclists to be guilty and to be servants who should toe the party line and do what they're told.

About 5 years ago, the pro team Landis was on, Mercury, went bankrupt. They couldn't pay the riders. However, before every season, the UCI requires each team to put a bank deposit/guarantee that can cover all the rider's salaries in just such a situation. However, if the guarantee is used, the team has to be suspended, pretty much destroying their chances of getting a new sponsior and racing for that season. After 30 days of not getting paid, the rider can write to request their salary. Landis did and was asked by the UCI to give Mercury another chance to pay. He agreed to do so.

After another 4 months went by, L:andis was majorly in debt on his credit cards so he requested again for his guarantee. The UCI again asked for him to give Mercury more time. He agreed but come fall (about 3 months later), Landis had a lwayer sent a letter to the UCI stating that he would have to pursue legal options to retrieve his money because he was in debt and the bank guarantee did not seem to be working. The UCI head wrote him a letter saying that the UCI did not believe they'd broken any rules and that, "such an agressive approach might perhaps work in the U.S.A., but it does not in Europe and most definitely not with me...I have taken order to our legal department to take the tone of your approach into account when it comes to following up on your request." Landis had a warning added to his file.

About a year later (2002 Tour de France), Landis was with US Postal. At the Tour de France he was asked by reporters about the status of the riders from Mercury getting paid. he told them he never received the money. Within two hours of the interview, he, Johan, Lance and the US Postal team managers had recieved a note stating that Landis had 48 hours to retract his statement or he'd be suspended indefinitely. Landis refused because he thought he'd done nothing wrong. Lance warned him not to cross the UCI, "It doesn't matter if you're right. You can't say things like that about the UCI. You're going to have to deal with them in the future, and you don't want them to be against you." Landis eventually apologized. He still did not get his money until THREE YEARS after his first request.

Now, fast forward to 2006. Landis has tested positive but is denying it. Pat McQuaid (head of UCI) gives him a call. "I'm not saying you're a bad guy," he told Landis, "I'm sure you weren't doing anything that everyone else wasn't doing. You're just the unlucky one who got caught. You should change your tactics and accept a suspension because there's no way you can win." Landis told him he wouldn't change tactics because he didn't do it and McQuaid replied, "You'll end up penniess." Now, putting aside whether you think every cyclist dopes or not, as the head of the UCI, if you truly believe that (as McQuaid was saying here to Landis) how can you honestly feel fine with some guys getting caught and others winning, and calling THEM "clean?" Further, do you believe that an organization run in the strongarm manner that the UCI appears to be (by more accoutns than Landis' BTW) and that believes ALL riders to be guilty would afford the rider a fair chance? Whether or not it played into the testing, the release of the results before the B sample or everything that followed, I think it's pretty clear the UCI was not fond of Landis. He'd made them, in their eyes, look bad.

Even further, McQuaid was quoted in the paper as saying that the reason they released the info about Floyd before the B sample was that, "the French laboratory has a close connection with L'Equipe, and the UCI preferred that the information not come through the press." So instead of sanctioning a lab for not foloowing the rules, he decides to break them himself?!

I have no idea if Landis is guilty or not but I think there's more than enough questionable practices by UCI and the French lab to say that they have not acted properly and have not fully proven Landis' guilt.

Anyways, read the book for yourself and see what you think.

[QUOTE=donrhummy]
Even further, McQuaid was quoted in the paper as saying that the reason they released the info about Floyd before the B sample was that, "the French laboratory has a close connection with L'Equipe, and the UCI preferred that the information not come through the press." So instead of sanctioning a lab for not foloowing the rules, he decides to break them himself?!

QUOTE]

Landis' positive A sample was announced by Phonak, not by anyone else,
this thing that someone else said it first is a lie that the Landis camp have repeated over and over.

If that's true, especially about the part where Landis rubbed the UCI the wrong way, it makes sense. Landis always came across as a gritty type of guy--no excuses, it is what it is and he won't sugarcoat it.

Lance always thanked the sponsors, thanked the tour organizers--what a great route, what a great race, etc. It seems plausible that he did give that advice to Landis so Landis could avoid future conflict but perhaps he was already blacklisted.

I haven't read the book, so I have to comment based on what you wrote in your post: I don't think the first part has very much to do with the second one. If it is true, the first part only shows that the UCI is a sleazy organization, which we all know anyway.

That said, I don't think McQuaid's phonecall sounds all that bad. It was sound advice at this point and he seemed to have wanted to tell Landis that the UCI would not back down on the issue of the positive test result.

Finally about releasing positive test results: In general it would be nice if everybody followed the rules regarding the release of positive test results. In practice, this will be a hard thing to police, and in the big scheme, I think it hardly matters. Headline material has the tendency to leak to the media. It's part of the game, and I don't think too much harm is done when rumors about test results are spread before they are confirmed (or not as in the case of Soler) by officials. Doping is a grave matter; to point back and complain about procedural failures concerning the release of results is a weak defense.

And these are facts because ? these would be more along the line of claims. Hell people, learn the difference between facts, claims, statements, theory's and such. And while I am on the rant, For all you Americans, US law is not global. Doping investigations do not have to follow the rules of evidence and the procedures of the United States. In fact as fer a s cycling goes, I think that doping investigations and testing need to follow UCI and WADA regulations. Obviously these procedures cannot violate local law, but dont have to follow the same requirements as a legal investigation. OK Rant OFF.

Floyd does have some interesting thing to say, of course I'd like to hear the other side. I do believe UCI is a typical political organization, primarily concerned with keeping themselves in power.

__________________
Terry

Landis was on something of this we all have no doubt. But there certainly are some interesting points brought up in how his sample was handled, tested, etc. And the obvious thing from your post is that Floyd is an "unlucky" one and the UCI knows it. That is more shameful then the guys taking drugs.

Sounds like politics as usual. In every major organization, there are groups you just don't trifle with, and they will step on you just to make an example out of you if you don't exhibit the proper respect.

I wonder if Chicken ticked them off at some time in the past?

Unfortunately for FL, all of that doesn't affect the positive test one bit.

Question, wasn't the existence of a positive test first leaked to the press, and then Phonak came forward and said it was Landis (who was suspected anyway because he was not appearing at post-Tour crits)? Wasn't the expectation that the test results would be confidential until the B-sample was tested, and the leak eliminated that confidentiality?

This, of course, is irrelevant to whether he used PEDs.

I stated this a long time ago. I can not understand why the UCI was so fervent about testing Landis' B samples at LNDD. If they're positive, they'll be positive in any lab. As it stands, they rolled out the red carpet for the conspiracy nuts to argue that LNDD was/is incompetent. Sad thing is, there seems to be some facts to back their argument up.

__________________
"Bait in 08" --nns1400

Yes, I said something like this quite a while ago also, that the reason we have a Landis case lingering around is that the testing system was not run at a high enough level of procedural accuracy/discipline/appropriateness/whatever to withstand scrutiny. They should have made the system "bullet-proof" with respect to such challenges. Pound must go (several years ago, actually, oh well).

Interesting. As others have said, this information really has nothing to do with his positive test, other then to imply that the UCI was simply out to get him b/c of the Mercury affair. It comes across more as attempted deflection then causaton. Pretty pathetic defense if you ask me. He is guilty.

btw, don, what was your position on Landis' case before you read the book? and now, after reading much of it, is it the same?

Fine. They were out to get him. And they did because he was positive.


So we're back to the "it's not fair if they don't catch everyone else who did it too." He's the guy who won the Tour, in an "unbelievable" comeback; he's the guy they're going to go after. Ask Rasmussen.

__________________
So what?

[QUOTE=Moller] That's not true. McQuaid came out and said that a rider has tested positive and "it's the worst possible case." That is 100% obviously telling reporters it's the Tour de France winner, Landis. And reporters started calling Phonak saying they knew it was Landis and THAT is when Phonak went public with it.

After hearing the arguments during the case and reading a TON of articles on it, my feeling was: "I have no idea if Landis doped or not but LNDD/UCI did not prove that he had doped." After reading the book my feeling is the same but I feel less like it was a simple bungling/mistake and more like there's been some bad intention behind some of this stuff.

I think this is the most interesting part of your post. Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing whether McQuaid actually said this. Anyway, if we assume this is true, it's quite telling about the lax attitude of the UCI with respect to doping.