- Jun 5, 2007
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.alienator said:How about that testosterone metabolization, eh? So...clean on day A, dirty on day B, and clean on day C. Hmmmmm.
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"