Floyd Landis



alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
earth_dweller said:
Only if you're into liars and cheats. So NO.

Hooooo doggy. What a come back. Dang, that was a real zinger.

Say, do you think on your own?
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
alienator said:
Hooooo doggy. What a come back. Dang, that was a real zinger.

Say, do you think on your own?
Being right doesn't ALWAYS mean having a contrary opinion to the general consensus. Unless being contrary is more important to one's ego than being right.
 

earth_dweller

New Member
Jul 30, 2006
1,814
0
0
alienator said:
Hooooo doggy. What a come back. Dang, that was a real zinger.

Say, do you think on your own?
Just answering the question. Didn't know I had to get your approval first, thought this was a public forum
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
earth_dweller said:
Just answering the question. Didn't know I had to get your approval first, thought this was a public forum

Nah, you don't need my approval. I was just wondering if you did any actual thought on your own, or if you just adopted the group-think of your pet clique.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
Crankyfeet said:
Being right doesn't ALWAYS mean having a contrary opinion to the general consensus. Unless being contrary is more important to one's ego than being right.

Ohhhhh. Is there a "right" in here somewhere?
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
alienator said:
Ohhhhh. Is there a "right" in here somewhere?
Good one. There are no facts involved in an opinion. :D I thought I could bait you into a trap...but I was screwed in your one post reply.:eek:

FWIW, earth dweller (or Edie to fellow cliquettes) is one of the more independent thinkers IMHO. In fact, she would probably be offended that she would be even considered to be in a clique of pets. She will definitely be offended that I am speaking a little on her behalf, but then again, I am a bit offensive to her anyway.:(

And if you're just bitter about not being in our gang...you are very welcome to join in the drivel at the FID thread. You would fit in by having an IQ with three numbers in it, a dedicated commitment (oxymoron?) to your forum surfing hobby. We also have a resident professor of astronomy/cosmology (TDL) who is a photograhy hobbyist together with a couple of other photography buffs. The thread is also proud to boast five attractive (inc. one very attractive;) ) female forum personalities who frequent regularly.

And also FWIW...and getting back to the OP's question...I don't think Floyd is a hot studdie.
 

earth_dweller

New Member
Jul 30, 2006
1,814
0
0
alienator said:
Nah, you don't need my approval. I was just wondering if you did any actual thought on your own, or if you just adopted the group-think of your pet clique.
so you decided by my short answer that I followed group think... well I decided by your short posts that you get your jollies by flaiming and baiting, I guess it makes you feel superior.

oh and by the way, I decided by myself that Landis is a cheater... it's called reading and thinking, you should try it sometimes.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
alienator said:
Hooooo doggy. What a come back. Dang, that was a real zinger.

Say, do you think on your own?
Did you call Edie a "Ho"? :mad:

Now that's going to alienate people.

Do you masturbate while you post or just after?:p
 

earth_dweller

New Member
Jul 30, 2006
1,814
0
0
Crankyfeet said:
Did you call Edie a "Ho"? :mad:

Now that's going to alienate people.

Do you masturbate while you post or just after?:p
that might explain the posts, sticky fingers and all
biggrin.gif
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
earth_dweller said:
so you decided by my short answer that I followed group think... well I decided by your short posts that you get your jollies by flaiming and baiting, I guess it makes you feel superior.

oh and by the way, I decided by myself that Landis is a cheater... it's called reading and thinking, you should try it sometimes.

Oh, you read and thought. Hmmmm. Did you read, like, evidence, or did you just read what tickled your peachfish in doping forums? Oh, wait....you got your facts from news articles, right? Oh I see. How objective of you. Very illuminating.

Finally, someone has been able to swim through the morass of doping to finally figure out what's going on. Thank the gods for earth_dweller. Really. Honestly. She really has a head for the facts. Really.
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
alienator said:
Oh, you read and thought. Hmmmm. Did you read, like, evidence, or did you just read what tickled your peachfish in doping forums? Oh, wait....you got your facts from news articles, right? Oh I see. How objective of you. Very illuminating.
Yeah. How do we know Landis doped and is lying about it? It's not like he has been convicted. It's also not like there was an 80+ page PDF released that describes the reasoning behind a conviction. It is also not like there was full coverage of his arbitration hearing with the USADA. It is not like everything that occurred in the hearing was mulled over by countless people on countless websites who were interested in the outcome. It is also not like newspapers, which had websites, wrote daily summaries of the hearing.

There is just not enough information available to form a reasonable conclusion. We have to assume Landis is clean.

;)
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
alienator said:
Oh, you read and thought. Hmmmm. Did you read, like, evidence, or did you just read what tickled your peachfish in doping forums? Oh, wait....you got your facts from news articles, right? Oh I see. How objective of you. Very illuminating.

Finally, someone has been able to swim through the morass of doping to finally figure out what's going on. Thank the gods for earth_dweller. Really. Honestly. She really has a head for the facts. Really.
Letting your emotions effect your argument a little there Alienator? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Landis' guilt as a doper been proven? It is not an opinion, gleaned from others' opinions, but established at the conclusion of a proper hearing. Since he was proven to be a cheat, and he still denies it, that also makes him a liar. Unless you are of the opinion that a person's guilt can never be attributed while they still plead their innocence? We should let just about everyone out of jail if that were the accepted credo.

Edie (earth_dweller) only said Floyd was a cheat and a liar. I think your statement "swimming through the morass of doping to finally figure out what's going on" doesn't apply to Edie's statement of a proven official judgment.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
Crankyfeet said:
Letting your emotions effect your argument a little there Alienator? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Landis' guilt as a doper been proven? It is not an opinion, gleaned from others' opinions, but established at the conclusion of a proper hearing. Since he was proven to be a cheat, and he still denies it, that also makes him a liar. Unless you are of the opinion that a person's guilt can never be attributed while they still plead their innocence? We should let just about everyone out of jail if that were the accepted credo.

Edie (earth_dweller) only said Floyd was a cheat and a liar. I think your statement "swimming through the morass of doping to finally figure out what's going on" doesn't apply to Edie's statement of a proven official judgment.

No nothing was proven. It was arbitrated. There was no trial.

That's easy enough to see. I don't know whether he's guilty or not. I do know that nothing was proven. But hey, we don't need that, we just need to accuse a bunch o' people. That's how things get done.

If anyone doesn't think the process was and is completely ****ed, well, enjoy your pollyanna existence.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
alienator said:
No nothing was proven. It was arbitrated. There was no trial.

That's easy enough to see. I don't know whether he's guilty or not. I do know that nothing was proven. But hey, we don't need that, we just need to accuse a bunch o' people. That's how things get done.

If anyone doesn't think the process was and is completely ****ed, well, enjoy your pollyanna existence.
The BCS college football bowl determination process is farked. But that doesn't mean that the best team can't still win it. Yes.. Landis' whole defence was aimed at creating enough doubt in enough specific stages of the process, to try to get unthinking people to lose confidence in the result. That was done because a thinking person would determine that they [Landis' team] had to explain how a false positive occurred on numerous IRMS tests that showed traces of synthetic testosterone. They didn't attack that point because it was damning incontrovertible evidence. Instead they chose the Chewbacca defense.

200px-0330chewbacca.jpg


An analogy, though probably a little exaggerated, would be a rapist who had been DNA matched to the sperm found in his victim, arguing that his case should be thrown out because the police were so incompetent, they used an outdated form when filing their report.

But you are right IMHO regarding possible flaws in the process. The system is less than perfect...especially when you are dealing with professional cyclists' lives.

I just don't think that any of these imperfections could have produced the damning evidence spuriously in Landis' case. It really only boiled down to one point...no matter how wide the defence wanted to make it. And this opinion happens to be the same as the adjudicators of the hearing, and most everyone else who studied the evidence (a lot more than I did obviously). And let's not even bring up the obvious attempt to manipulate Lemond's testimony, which wasn't even considered probably in the decision.
 

nns1400

New Member
Jul 27, 2006
6,276
0
0
alienator said:
Nah, you don't need my approval. I was just wondering if you did any actual thought on your own, or if you just adopted the group-think of your pet clique.
Well, if you really knew anything about our "clique", you'd know we don't have group-think. OTOH, if you know anything about our clique at all, then I guess you just lurk jealously in the corner instead of posting anything like a real man. :rolleyes:
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
nns1400 said:
Well, if you really knew anything about our "clique", you'd know we don't have group-think. OTOH, if you know anything about our clique at all, then I guess you just lurk jealously in the corner instead of posting anything like a real man. :rolleyes:
I thought MikeEagle12 and the Order of Men told us that there are no real men anymore. :p
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
Crankyfeet said:
The BCS college football bowl determination process is farked. But that doesn't mean that the best team can't still win it. Yes.. Landis' whole defence was aimed at creating enough doubt in enough specific stages of the process, to try to get unthinking people to lose confidence in the result. That was done because a thinking person would determine that they [Landis' team] had to explain how a false positive occurred on numerous IRMS tests that showed traces of synthetic testosterone. They didn't attack that point because it was damning incontrovertible evidence. Instead they chose the Chewbacca defense.

Oh? How is a defense supposed to work? According to the lynch mobs, no one can claim innocence, because if they do, they're guilty. So, the Landis team did what any defense team would have done: pointed out the procedural errors and inconsistencies. Of course, since you feel like the sheriff done got his man, those inconsistencies are fine by you. I mean, who cares what happens down the line that's wrong as long as it works for you, now, right?

The BCS analogy is completely wrong. Just because the process found Landis culpable doesn't mean that he was. It doesn't mean that he wasn't either; however, there is no way to be sure since the process was so ****ed up.

Proof? Test results? You mean like the ones where ID numbers were recorded incorrectly and then whited out/written over? So you're absolutely positive that's ok, right? Oh sure. That works. As long as the ID for the person you want to hang ends up on the vial, that's ok.

How about that testosterone metabolization, eh? So...clean on day A, dirty on day B, and clean on day C. Hmmmmm.

Here's a little helpful hint for all y'all who gots your guy in yer sights: the procedures are there, allegedly, to prevent these errors. There is a formal procedure so that when things don't run according to procedure, people can point out and say, "uhm, NO!"

I'm fine with my thought, thanks, but if I ever think that I'd need to stoop to asking you for help, I'll keep it in mind. I like how you folks carp about evidence but ignore the problems with the way the evidence was handled. You guys should be on Texas juries. Hang 'em high, but only worry about your mistakes until after it's too late. Nice.