Landis' last gasp

TheDarkLord

There are some theories about why this could have happened if you check the old threads. Just theories mind you, but some are interesting - e.g. the blood he transfused had something wacky; or that when the body restarts testosterone production after you stop taking it exogenously, the T/E goes out of whack, etc.

TheDarkLord

I don't like him personally, and most of it is due to the LeMond incident...

whiteboytrash

I shudder to think how much Floyd Landis' appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport has cost him, but whatever it was, it's a stunning waste of money.

I wonder how his supporters, who had pledged money to his Floyd Fairness Fund, felt when the decision to uphold his positive test for testosterone.

There were some pretty loud bleaters who were very keen to see fraud, ineptitude and conspiracy at every turn in the Landis case. Unfortunately for them, and for Landis, the legal experts who assessed the finest detail of his case did not agree.

I remember cursing him as he weaved his way up La Toussuire and out of the yellow jersey because I got a call from the desk of the national newspaper I was writing for at the time to say that they were spiking my 2,000-word Floyd Landis profile and could I supply them with something else to fill the hole. By six o'clock.

I was not alone in watching, awe-struck, as Landis rode away from the peloton and recouped almost all of the previous day's losses.

Because friends of mine who are cycling fans see me as some kind of doom-mongering über-sceptic, I received a number of texts asking the same thing. “What do you make of this?”

At that point I remembered Lance Armstrong's words on the podium as he signed off from his seven-year domination. He felt sorry for those of us who did not believe. Truly sorry that we were too cynical and miserable to accept the veracity of what we were watching.

Although I'd sniggered when it turned out the two people standing alongside him on the podium that day in Paris were up to their necks in Operacion Puerto's bloody mess, I wanted to believe.

All fans of this sport wanted to believe. “It's either the greatest comeback ever, or the biggest example of sporting fraud ever,” was my answer.

I remember the crushing feeling of hearing that Landis had tested positive. It wasn't that I wanted a cheat to prosper, just that this was an even more damaging blow to the solar plexus than the ones that had preceded the Tour.

There were the requests to talk on radio and television stations when it seemed I was being asked to defend the entire sport of cycling when I felt like doing nothing of the sort.

Landis went for the scattergun approach when it came to defending himself. He fired out a barrage of different explanations, all of which had a ring of plausibility but when put together they looked like the excuses of a child who hadn't done his homework. “The dog ate it. I left it on the bus. I didn't realise it had to be in today.”

The despicable episode when a member of Landis' entourage attempted to smear the reputation of Greg LeMond showed Landis in the poorest possible light and from that moment any sympathy with his plight drained away.

Instead we had a two-year battle to clear his name, which followed a tried and tested American legal and PR tactic, which is to repeat loudly and often one or two simple statements that played in his favour, while drowning out the evidence against with long, complicated babble.

It didn't work.

It was a monumental waste of time and money and even less people believe in Landis now than they did in early August 2006.

This judgment is the footnote to the least relevant race ever won. Feel free to consider Oscar Pereiro the winner, if you like. Personally, I feel the 2006 Tour has no winner.

Now Landis is said to be 'considering his legal options'. What's the point? No one in their right mind will ever consider him the winner. His attempts to prove the tests are scientifically flawed or that the French were institutionally biased against him have failed.

C'dale Girl

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.

TheDarkLord

Well, you chose the wrong candidate, and the wrong case. As fsc alluded previously, the IMRS test is kinda hard to dispute. And for every irregularity that the lab committed, FL and his gang did something equally or more stupid (to be a bit more blunt than what you posted above ). If he had acted in a more level headed manner, he may have had a slightly better chance - again, the IMRS test is hard to discredit.

fscyclist

I'd like to address a few points in your post, which I do appreciate BTW.

First, you state you contributed to a 'challenge of the process' but fail to specify which process is broken, so it is a difficult statement to challenge. Is it fair that some cheaters are caught and others not? Of course not, but that is life - some theives get away with the booty while others are caught. Are you challenging the process once a positive test is identified? Well that is what Floyd challenged, and in my opinion that is the one part of the anti-doping process that isn't broken. Not only did he challenge it, he tried to destroy it, which would leave us where, without any method of testing?

What specifically in the laboratory testing process was so faulty? Which scientific test is not valid? Which lab worker was involved in a conspiracy to frame Floyd? What evidence is there that the French lab is corrupt? See, these are the points that Floyd made, fortunately with ill results. He did not argue that the UCI is corrupt or that some people appear to be protected while others aren't; instead he went after the scientists and their tests and tried to make them appear corrupt, incompetent, accused them of lying and forgery, and tried to outspend USADA and WADA in a deliberate attempt cause their destruction. I fail to see how that is noble, unless of course you don't want any drug testing (another issue of debate).

If the laboratory testing process is so broken, then where are all the innocent athletes that have been wrongly convicted? If anything, the opposite is true, and we see time and time again, guilty athletes beat the system. The tests are already rigged in the athletes favor by providing such high threshold levels. What we see now is many teams developing their own testing procedures because they know the WADA tests are not adequate.

Floyd tried to frame his case as if he was guaranteed the same due process protections granted by the 5th amendment. He signed on to a Pro Tour contract that specified the consequences and arbitration procedure for a positive test. If he didn't like it then he shouldn't have signed the contract. If his fellow riders don't like it then they should get together and demand a different procedure.

I've got no sympathy for Landis at this point. I think picking the 'right candidate' is crucial if you are going to test the system. Not only was Landis guilty, but his plan of attack was malignant and misdirected. I'm very pleased with the CAS decision. It was an absolutely stinging rebuke of the tactics of his legal team, and I still feel further investigation should be pursued into the Lemond incident, which of course was absolutely repugnant.

C'dale Girl

As I said, I didn't choose the candidate . . . he was merely the candidate that chose to take the matter on, because he had the specific facts ripe for taking on the challenge (TdF winner).

Trust me when I say that most clients drive their lawyers crazy and lawyers often wish they had a better client or better set of facts. That's the name of the game. That's what I've learned many cycling fans don't get. It ain't about the person for me . . . I'm not attached to any of these people . . . . I have no emotional attachment whatsoever to any professional athlete truthfully. Do I like some better than others? Of course. But that's about the extent of it.

The TdF winner popped up positive so it was time to challenge the system. He had a public campaign and solicited donations for his defense fund and I contributed. Given my vocation, I don't think that was very far out of line for me to do, irregardless of the person behind the cause.

Did he and his less than professional manager do some stupid things along the way? Yep. That's why I specifically said that a different poster child would have been better. But, you don't get to pick the person for the cause . . . it is what it is and you deal with the cards you're dealt, just like any other case.

C'dale Girl

Respectfully fscylist . . . I appreciate your lengthy post. However, I'm not up for debating these issues. It's been gone over and over and over and over and OVER again. Personally, I just don't care enough to spend my time rehashing this stuff.

I was afraid that my post would bait further response and debate on the FLandis case itself and feel bad that you took the time to post such a lengthy well thought out reply in response. That however wasn't my intent. Instead, my intent was merely to respond to WBT's post about people who contributed to Floyd's defense and provide perspective from someone who did, to let you all know that not everyone contributed out of fan worship or love for Floyd. Personally, I don't get fan worship generally speaking but that's another whole topic for a different thread.

Seeing as how I'm NOT a die hard Floyd supporter and as such don't wish to spend my time debating the issue any further, you'll have to find someone else to argue with about it. Sorry, but this fish just ain't biting atm.

Crankyfeet

C... you keep defending that it is not about the defendant and his personality... and that cycling fans don't get this... but you keep defending an accusation or point that has not been made here (unless I'm mistaken). You said that IYO the process was flawed... and when people addressed that point by stating that either the IRMS test was deficult to discredit (TDL)... or that the defendant's allegations of a corrupted procedure were found to be insufficient to drop the charges (FS) ... you keep coming back to this "I'm all about the system and the facts of the case... not the character of the defendant" line. This is not DPF.

I for one am not about Floyd's character in the case either... but I am interested in the views of people who maintain that the system was flawed and could have incorrectly classed the defendant as a doper.

The arbitrators stated that there were negligent actions in the line of custody... but that these actions weren't sufficient to cast doubt on the results.... specifically the IRMS tests. And they BTW IRMS tested about four other defendant samples in the race and found those to contain synthetic testosterone as well... but these findings were not included as evidence in the case.


Post edit - I missed your last post. Please ignore my post above. I have no interest in your response now that you have explained your position and am not trying to bait you.

__________________

C'dale Girl

I'm not following you Cranky. Don't get the reference to DPF. But your last sentence seems to say exactly what I'm saying. THAT SAID, I'm out. If anybody responds to my post I'm not replying so I suggest not wasting your time.

This is what I hate. I merely posted a perspective in response to WBT. I don't have hours or days to take on everybody responding to my post. Sorry guys. Sometimes I'd just like to state a perspective or opinion and not argue or debate about it for hours or days on end. That was my intent here. This is why I don't post much in the substantive forums, but mainly just lurk. I just don't have the time to take on the project of arguing and debating at length. I actually thought about even making my post for that reason. I guess I should have erred on the side of lurking.

Sorry. I don't mean that offensively. Sincerely. I live on borrowed time and I just am not at a point atm where I can debate this stuff forever. On that note, I must go and am out.

fscyclist

I understand...although sorry I don't get to keep going. I will leave you with one more thought. That is, in a country where civil litigation is so prevalent I think plaintiffs and their attorneys neglect thinking about the personal affects these cases have. Sure you threw money to a 'cause', but I'm sure this case had enormous personal effects on those scientists. They go to work every day and I'm sure do their absolute best, and they likely take pride in their work and do it well and with competence. This case just dragged them and their reputations through the mud; I'm sure many worried about losing their job, and they were put through a great deal of personal anxiety and sacrifice for 18 months. Why? So you could fight your undefined 'cause' in defense of a doper with questionable character? Unfortunately this goes on throughout our country every day where hard working innocent people are sued without basis, only to sacrifice time, money, and suffer mental anguish in their defense against greed. That is what the FFF and Landis' legal onslaught did to those scientists.

Crankyfeet

I agree with your point about the system of litigation here (in the US) causing hardship to innocents because greedy fuckers can abuse the system (heads I win a "million" dollars, tails I lose basically nothing). I also think that a charismatic court lawyer can cast a nefarious cloud with a short speech or line of questioning... and make competent people appear incompetent or even corrupt.

I am not sure though that the case is such a bad thing... in that the testing system had little accountability it seemed (not saying that the scientists were unprofessional... just that they had little oversight it seems)... the process and line of custody issue in Landis' case was shoddy to say the least... and we are dealing with athlete's livelihoods and lifelong reputations here.

I think that the case unfairly accused many professionals of incompetence... but as far as I'm concerned... if the anti-doping process is going to work and we are to have complete confidence in it (and that especially goes for the pros), the testing process has to be exemplary and rigorous in its control of possible errors. The risk of being taken to court over negligence is a somewhat effective watchdog on precision and rigor in the process IMHO.

__________________

Crankyfeet

Sorry... I made a wrong assumption.

__________________

TheDarkLord

Well, one thing that was established by USADA was that there were some irregularities in the lab. I hope that this entire process at least has the effect of making them a bit more careful in future so that the guilty cannot make such a case to start with.