Floyd Landis



Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
alienator said:
How about that testosterone metabolization, eh? So...clean on day A, dirty on day B, and clean on day C. Hmmmmm.
I thought when they performed the IRMS test on all his samples taken during the race, they all came out above the 4:1 limit. Not by much (4.4 to about 6.5 or thereabouts)...but the 4:1 limit is supposed to be conservative in any case. Nothing like the 11 or 12:1 ratio found after his Hercules performance. This evidence wasn't used in arbitration because the Stage 17 (?) positive was the only one he was charged with initially.

Were all those vials accidently mixed up with other cyclists using testosterone? Or was it just a conspiracy by the lab and all the lab workers in conjunction with the UCI?

The original tests on the earlier stages weren't IRMS, and didn't trip anything.

And I suppose Lemond was lying when he said that Landis told him by phone that he [Landis] couldn't admit the truth because it would be impossible for him to face his family if he did. I suppose Lemond, under oath, and a confidante who Landis called in distress for advice, would just invent this fact so that Landis' career would be wrecked. What is the motivation for Lemond to lie?? I can see a lot of motivation for Landis to lie about what he said to Lemond. And why would Landis' best friend, Will Geoghan, ring Lemond and threaten him with personal disclosures if he testified? Do you think Lemond would have rung Landis before the threatening calls by Geoghan and said "Look Floyd, I'm going to tell everyone that you told me that you were guilty...I'll make it up so it looks like you and lots of guys are doping...sorry about you losing your TdF title and your name and career being destroyed as a result of my lie under oath"

Yeah...right...
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
Crankyfeet said:
Were all those vials accidently mixed up with other cyclists using testosterone? Or was it just a conspiracy by the lab and all the lab workers in conjunction with the UCI?
I am going to have to go with a conspiracy. The thought that Landis doped is so simple of an explanation it cannot be true. There are dark forces at work here.
 

threaded

New Member
Jul 6, 2006
313
0
0
The test results were so bizarre that there is no way a sane person could take them as evidence of anything but the testing process is borked in a deep and meaningful way.

Just my 2c.
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
threaded said:
The test results were so bizarre that there is no way a sane person could take them as evidence of anything but the testing process is borked in a deep and meaningful way.

Just my 2c.
You know, the arbs' decision goes a long, long way toward shooting down all the propaganda put out by Landis' spinmeisters.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
Its a good thing this Landis doping incident, hearing and decision are finally being discussed in a dedicated thread. I don't think it was debated at all the last couple of years.:rolleyes:

:D
 

nns1400

New Member
Jul 27, 2006
6,276
0
0
I thought the evidence was when he won that day...:rolleyes:

Here's a tip....when the commentators start using the word "unbelievable!" though they are being enthusiastic and complimentary, just wait it out. That person usually gets busted.
 

C'dale Girl

New Member
May 22, 2007
4,154
0
0
The truth always lies somewhere in the middle . . . . this holds true, even in this thread.

Lest, Alienator, you lump me into some clique (fer real? An internet clique? I take that as a HUGE insult if I'm lumped into that . . . I actually have a real life and, heaven forbid, real friends, but I digress) . . .

Lest you think I'm in some ridiculous internet clique, I hear you Alienator and, heaven forbid, basically agree with you :eek: about the procedural issues. Floyd's innocence or guilt is (ready guys, sit down for this one) irrelevant to those procedural issues.

The problem though, Alienator, as I've come to learn anyway, is that die hard cycling fans are too blinded by the doping issues and their emotions to actually step back, remove their emotions and think strictly cognitively, so as to hear those very real procedural issues that you are pointing out. So, you can talk until the cows come home, but believe me when I say that your points will fall on deaf ears.

Criminals go free due to cops messing up procedurally. Yes, it's true, it happens. Simple hypothetical scenario: cops break into a home and find the drug dealer dumping his stash down the toilet. Perfect! They caught him red-handed! Ah, only one problem though. They didn't have a warrant when they busted down the door. Guess what? Barring any other incriminating evidence, the dope dealer just won the freedom lottery, 'cause the drugs seized by the cops were seized illegally by the cops since they had no authority to enter the home to begin with. So that evidence was obtained illegally and cannot be used against him in trial. So, the fact that the cops saw the guy actually handling the drugs becomes . . . . irrelevant . . . . 'cause it's inadmissible evidence . . . and without any other evidence . . . well . . . sadly the drug dealer goes free.

We may not like the outcome, but those procedures and policies are in place for a reason. Because, also sadly (and believe it or not) occasionally somebody does try to set somebody else up, even a (God forbid) "bad" cop. :rolleyes: Bad, malicious and/or vindictive people really are out there, as much as you don't want to believe it. So, we let that one drug dealer go free to protect the masses, by instituting and following procedures so as to curtail the inner devil in some person of power that might want to set somebody up that they don't like for some reason.

I know, I hear you . . . how many of those malicious people are out there really? What are the odds of such an event? The Floyd haters are correct. Not that many . . . very low odds. HOWEVER, the reason that is the case is because of (say it with me everyone) those very policies and procedures put into place deter such behavior. Without those policies and procedures, it would be a free for all and the malicious behavior would be in the vast majority, not the minority.

So, here we are, over a year later, with the same pollyanna arguments coming out of the mouths of people on both sides of the argument. ;)

(and yes, my tone and demeanor here is in jest and I'm simply playing in that regard). :)
 

Bro Deal

New Member
Jun 26, 2006
6,698
4
0
C'dale Girl said:
The problem though, Alienator, as I've come to learn anyway, is that die hard cycling fans are too blinded by the doping issues and their emotions to actually step back, remove their emotions and think strictly cognitively, so as to hear those very real procedural issues that you are pointing out. So, you can talk until the cows come home, but believe me when I say that your points will fall on deaf ears.

Criminals go free due to cops messing up procedurally. Yes, it's true, it happens. Simple hypothetical scenario: cops break into a home and find the drug dealer dumping his stash down the toilet. Perfect! They caught him red-handed! Ah, only one problem though. They didn't have a warrant when they busted down the door. Guess what? Barring any other incriminating evidence, the dope dealer just won the freedom lottery, 'cause the drugs seized by the cops were seized illegally by the cops since they had no authority to enter the home to begin with. So that evidence was obtained illegally and cannot be used against him in trial. So, the fact that the cops saw the guy actually handling the drugs becomes . . . . irrelevant . . . . 'cause it's inadmissible evidence . . . and without any other evidence . . . well . . . sadly the drug dealer goes free.

We may not like the outcome, but those procedures and policies are in place for a reason. Because, also sadly (and believe it or not) occasionally somebody does try to set somebody else up, even a (God forbid) "bad" cop. :rolleyes: Bad, malicious and/or vindictive people really are out there, as much as you don't want to believe it. So, we let that one drug dealer go free to protect the masses, by instituting and following procedures so as to curtail the inner devil in some person of power that might want to set somebody up that they don't like for some reason.
Arguing about whether Landis doped is different than arguing about whether he should be punished. Most doping discussion on the Internet revolves around whether a rider doped. Procedural issues are dismissed because this is not a court of law, and the people crying about cyclist's rights are the same ones who three years ago were denying there was a widespread doping problem or claiming their favorite rider was the victim of a French conspiracy. Their latest defense about rights gets dismissed because it is seen as a cynical attempt to paint dopers as victims and divert the discussion away from whether or not a rider doped.

To continue your hypothetical with the drug dealer, we have one side saying the guy is a dope dealer, the cops caught him red handed; and the other side not saying the dealer should not be punished, but saying he is not a drug dealer at all. Those denying that he is a drug dealer get rightfully laughed at by those pointing at the confiscated drugs.

Whether a riders gets sanctioned is not seen as important to those who have followed pro cyclign for a long time because they know that the sport is thoroughly corrupt with doping. Punishing any individual rider for doping amounts to scapegoating one rider so all the others can continue doing the exact same thing. The punishment itself may be unfair and the system could be improved, but don't try to blow sunshine up our asses by claiming a rider is clean as driven snow.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
C'dale Girl said:
The truth always lies somewhere in the middle . . . . this holds true, even in this thread.
How can the truth lie somewhere in the middle? The truth is he either doped or he didn't. He can't have been a little bit doped. He can't have been a little bit guilty.

There is no allowance for mild doping, despite the test threshold quantities, which effectively permit it if you're really good at measuring your dosages. If someone is caught poking a syringe full of tesosterone into their arm, it doesn't matter whether he can still pass the test. Obviously Floyd didn't get caught pushing the syringe full of dope into his vein, but my point is that any doping of banned substances contravenes rules. The thresholds are in place to allow for natural variation and testing errors. However there is NO natural variation of synthetic testosterone in anyone's body, unless it was put there.

I am one of those who believe in innocence until proven guilty. I am against capital punishment. I hate today's tabloid trials in the media, which must have an effect on the judgment, despite efforts to shield jurors. Shawshank Redemption is one of my favorite films. Sometimes I have trouble sleeping at night thinking about all those people who have been falsely incarcerated and/or executed. But take a look at the evidence here guys. What is the probability of two false positives on SYNTHETIC testosterone? Notwithstanding the chances of five out of five testosterone false positives from IRMS tests on his other race samples, which weren't even used as evidence.

Also, can someone explain to me a plausible explanation/motive for why Lemond would have lied under oath about what Floyd told him? I am struggling to see how Lemond would kill his friend's TdF win, reputation and career just to falsely notch another rider as a doper.
 

C'dale Girl

New Member
May 22, 2007
4,154
0
0
Bro Deal said:
Arguing about whether Landis doped is different than arguing about whether he should be punished. Most doping discussion on the Internet revolves around whether a rider doped. Procedural issues are dismissed because this is not a court of law, and the people crying about cyclist's rights are the same ones who three years ago were denying there was a widespread doping problem or claiming their favorite rider was the victim of a French conspiracy. Their latest defense about rights gets dismissed because it is seen as a cynical attempt to paint dopers as victims and divert the discussion away from whether or not a rider doped.

To continue your hypothetical with the drug dealer, we have one side saying the guy is a dope dealer, the cops caught him red handed; and the other side not saying the dealer should not be punished, but saying he is not a drug dealer at all. Those denying that he is a drug dealer get rightfully laughed at by those pointing at the confiscated drugs.

Whether a riders gets sanctioned is not seen as important to those who have followed pro cyclign for a long time because they know that the sport is thoroughly corrupt with doping. Punishing any individual rider for doping amounts to scapegoating one rider so all the others can continue doing the exact same thing. The punishment itself may be unfair and the system could be improved, but don't try to blow sunshine up our asses by claiming a rider is clean as driven snow.
You and I basically agree. But, it is wrong for all people arguing about procedural issues to be lumped into the fandom category. And yes, the procedural issues and "doper" issues are separate and distinct, which was exactly what I was saying. But I was also saying that too many cycling fans, especially those most vocal anti-doping cycling fans, cannot seem to recognize that very important distinction. The procedural arguments tend to fall on deaf ears. You can tell that when you read the follow up posts with counter-arguments. The counter-posts rarely acknowledge the procedural arguments and instead cry many variations of "he's a doper."
 

C'dale Girl

New Member
May 22, 2007
4,154
0
0
Crankyfeet said:
How can the truth lie somewhere in the middle? The truth is he either doped or he didn't. He can't have been a little bit doped. He can't have been a little bit guilty.
There is no allowance for mild doping, despite the test threshold quantities, which effectively permit it if you're really good at measuring your dosages. If someone is caught poking a syringe full of tesosterone into their arm, it doesn't matter whether he can still pass the test. Obviously Floyd didn't get caught pushing the syringe full of dope into his vein, but my point is that any doping of banned substances contravenes rules. The thresholds are in place to allow for natural variation and testing errors. However there is NO natural variation of synthetic testosterone in anyone's body, unless it was put there.

I am one of those who believe in innocence until proven guilty. I am against capital punishment. I hate today's tabloid trials in the media, which must have an effect on the judgment, despite efforts to shield jurors. Shawshank Redemption is one of my favorite films. Sometimes I have trouble sleeping at night thinking about all those people who have been falsely incarcerated and/or executed. But take a look at the evidence here guys. What is the probability of two false positives on SYNTHETIC testosterone? Notwithstanding the chances of five out of five testosterone false positives from IRMS tests on his other race samples, which weren't even used as evidence.

Also, can someone explain to me a plausible explanation/motive for why Lemond would have lied under oath about what Floyd told him? I am struggling to see how Lemond would kill his friend's TdF win, reputation and career just to falsely notch another rider as a doper.[/QUOTE]
 

C'dale Girl

New Member
May 22, 2007
4,154
0
0
Crankyfeet said:
How can the truth lie somewhere in the middle? The truth is he either doped or he didn't. He can't have been a little bit doped. He can't have been a little bit guilty.
This goes back to what TFF said in another thread about a month ago. It's goes to one's perceptions of truth and facts given the influences of their personal opinions and impressions. Some loyal Floyd fans insist that the truth is that Floyd didn't dope; others insist the truth is that he did dope. In the process of legitimizing their personal beliefs and twisting them to be their own personal truth, they view the very same facts very differently. This is how you end up with the battle of the experts in a case . . . one side finds an expert to say one thing, the other side finds an expert to say the exact opposite. Those experts' perceptions and opinions regarding the truth and the facts as they see them, in application to the very same event, are polar opposite.

Also, can someone explain to me a plausible explanation/motive for why Lemond would have lied under oath about what Floyd told him? I am struggling to see how Lemond would kill his friend's TdF win, reputation and career just to falsely notch another rider as a doper.
Well, if you read the transcript, LeMond did not testify that Floyd said exactly what you said he said (in a previous post of yours). Again, this goes to one's perceptions based on one's personal views. There is room for varying interpretation of what Floyd said to LeMond, according to LeMond's testimony. I don't have a copy of it now, and it's been awhile, and I really just don't care enough to try and locate it now.

Also, I think you have the facts wrong about Floyd and LeMond being friends (another example of perceptions of facts based on personal views and predispositions). Instead, I've only heard statements indicating they were strangers who both happened to have the commonality of being American TdF winners. They spoke on that basis alone to my understanding, only a couple of times in total.

And, I do not mean any of this as a judgment or criticism of you individually, whatsoever. It is human nature in general, that nobody can get away from, which is why I made my initial statement about the truth being somewhere in the middle.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
C'dale Girl said:
Those experts' perceptions and opinions regarding the truth and the facts as they see them, in application to the very same event, are polar opposite.

That's a key point that has continually been overlooked. There are few facts in the case, and what facts are alleged are questionable.

As to your comments earlier re: procedural errors, well, those procedural errors are some of the few facts. Everyone looking to nail a doper is willing to overlook wrongly recorded numbers or lapses or violations of procedural error. Of course, it's easy to do that when your life or livelihood isn't on the line. I wonder how comfy people would be having incorrectly labeled bags of blood infused. How cozy would folks be if they picked up a prescription and saw that the pharmacist had whited out the label and written over it?

It's certainly scientifically questionable to have a lab do B sample testing once it's already done A sample testing. Different labs should be used. In fact, there should be a rotation of labs for all tests. Having all these procedural errors documented only highlights why the same lab shouldn't be used to ultimately verify or disprove the original tests.

Again, it's dead easy to sit back and poo poo procedural errors when you're not the one who'll suffer any untoward consequences. And it's sadly ironic to think that people who are doing the poo pooing think that doping will ever be reduced with such sloppy procedure. No, what will happen will be that some innocent rider, or more riders, will be railroaded for The Cause. Who knows, it's entirely possible that it's already happened. We're finding out that such mistakes have been made in our justice system, so what makes the doping punishment scheme any less susceptible?

No one knows what LeMond's motivation was or is. Given arguments put up by the rabid anti-doping fans, LeMond was likely a doper since he claims to have not doped. Of course, the rabid won't see it that way because of their own, special hypocrisy.

Another salient point made was that people who question or doubt the Floyd outcome aren't necessarily Floyd fans. They're just as likely to be reasonable people. The idea that they have to be fans is stupid on its face and follows no logic at all.
 

C'dale Girl

New Member
May 22, 2007
4,154
0
0
alienator said:
That's a key point that has continually been overlooked. There are few facts in the case, and what facts are alleged are questionable.

As to your comments earlier re: procedural errors, well, those procedural errors are some of the few facts. Everyone looking to nail a doper is willing to overlook wrongly recorded numbers or lapses or violations of procedural error. Of course, it's easy to do that when your life or livelihood isn't on the line. I wonder how comfy people would be having incorrectly labeled bags of blood infused. How cozy would folks be if they picked up a prescription and saw that the pharmacist had whited out the label and written over it?

It's certainly scientifically questionable to have a lab do B sample testing once it's already done A sample testing. Different labs should be used. In fact, there should be a rotation of labs for all tests. Having all these procedural errors documented only highlights why the same lab shouldn't be used to ultimately verify or disprove the original tests.

Again, it's dead easy to sit back and poo poo procedural errors when you're not the one who'll suffer any untoward consequences. And it's sadly ironic to think that people who are doing the poo pooing think that doping will ever be reduced with such sloppy procedure. No, what will happen will be that some innocent rider, or more riders, will be railroaded for The Cause. Who knows, it's entirely possible that it's already happened. We're finding out that such mistakes have been made in our justice system, so what makes the doping punishment scheme any less susceptible?

No one knows what LeMond's motivation was or is. Given arguments put up by the rabid anti-doping fans, LeMond was likely a doper since he claims to have not doped. Of course, the rabid won't see it that way because of their own, special hypocrisy.

Another salient point made was that people who question or doubt the Floyd outcome aren't necessarily Floyd fans. They're just as likely to be reasonable people. The idea that they have to be fans is stupid on its face and follows no logic at all.
Agreed on all points. Just as I agreed with Bro. I can agree with both of you because I'm on the outside looking in, without any emotional attachment or investment to any of the parties/sides involved. You both made very real observations about "the other side" of the argument.
 

Crankyfeet

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
10,817
0
36
The arbitrators found Floyd to be guilty of doping...and they also found the laboratory processes to be somewhat shoddy.

On the question of truth: IMO opinion you are mixing up real truth and opinions of the truth. Truth is independent of opinion. Yes...the real truth can lie between peoples opinions of the truth in general. But the only truth that is important in this case is whether he doped or not. It is a one...or a zero. He didn't partially use PED's. As an analogy... if someone's pregnancy is up for trial...either the yays or the nays are going to be "the truth". The truth won't be somewhere in between. It was not a trial to determine who was at fault in a car accident.

On Lemond: Floyd called up Lemond shortly after the scandal broke out for advice. You can make up your own mind as to their relationship. Its really inconsequential. Why would Lemond invent testimony that effectively murders Floyd's cycling career and name?

Nearly everyone agrees that the dope testing process was less than perfect. I am also in agreement with alienator's point that it is disgusting that they would be so careless with a process that effectively can kill someone's career. But the testing process wasn't on trial. It was used by the defense to cast doubt on the results. The question is: Despite being a mitigating factor in some of the reults, did it invalidate all the condemning evidence. The arbitrators decision was that it didn't.

The point was made that those who think he should have been found not guilty based on the evidence aren't neccessarily Floyd supporters. That point also extends to those who believe he is guilty. They are not neccessarily of the opinion that there were not flaws in some of the laboratory processes/handling.

I think it is wrong to assume all those who agree with the decision are prejudiced by The Cause. I was a big Floyd supporter initially. I don't see any point in falsely condemning anybody for The Cause. Labelling those who agree that he was guilty as prejudiced is about as logical as saying that those that disagree he was guilty are all anti-establishment conspiracy theorists. Polarizing and pigeon-holing truth seekers into extreme camps is an unfortunate habit in America it seems.

Now that I have had the last word on this, we can close up this thread (unless someone wants to agree with me). Any further argument would obviously be viewed as clutching at straws....:D
 

Oruboris

New Member
May 10, 2006
58
0
0
Dunno about the 'Hottie' issue, but I tend to trust Landis more than the French lab or LeMond, who seems to believe no American [other than himself, of couse] could possibly win the tour without doping, and whose testimony was very damagining to Lands.
 

poulidor

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,464
0
0
Are you speaking from Floyd Landis the guy who was able to beat the blood doped riders of TMob?