Frankie Andreu was interviewed yesterday afternoon on 850 "The Buzz" (a Raleigh, NC, sports radio station) by Adam Gold. I've been trying to find a transcript or a podcast of the interview but haven't had any luck yet, so I'll try to remember as much as I can.
Andreu said he thought Landis is innocent. That he knows Landis and doesn't think he'd do this kind of thing. But he also said that proving his innocence would be a big hurdle for him. He also called this a big hurdle for cycling.
What struck me is how uninformed he is. For example, in discussing the failed T/E ratio test, Gold said he had read reports that Landis's testosterone level wasn't actually elevated, but that the epitestosterone level was very low, causing the 11:1 ratio that's been reported. Andreu said that Gold had it backwards, that the epitestosterone was way high, and that the ratio of E:T was 11:1. At first I thought I had heard him wrong, but he repeated it.
Then, when Gold asked if the lab that did the testing was the same one that was involved in the Armstrong affair from last year, Andreu said he didn't know. He didn't know?!?
Then Andreu said something totally bizarre. He said something to the effect that the Armstrong story hadn't been looked into very much (I guess he hasn't read Vrijman's report!), but that the case against Landis would be.
As the interview wrapped up, I was wondering how someone supposedly so involved in cycling could be so uninformed. I mean, first he expressed his opinion that Landis was innocent, but then he was wrong about so many basic facts that it would be hard to trust his opinion on anything...
Did anyone else in this area hear the interview?
Andreu said he thought Landis is innocent. That he knows Landis and doesn't think he'd do this kind of thing. But he also said that proving his innocence would be a big hurdle for him. He also called this a big hurdle for cycling.
What struck me is how uninformed he is. For example, in discussing the failed T/E ratio test, Gold said he had read reports that Landis's testosterone level wasn't actually elevated, but that the epitestosterone level was very low, causing the 11:1 ratio that's been reported. Andreu said that Gold had it backwards, that the epitestosterone was way high, and that the ratio of E:T was 11:1. At first I thought I had heard him wrong, but he repeated it.
Then, when Gold asked if the lab that did the testing was the same one that was involved in the Armstrong affair from last year, Andreu said he didn't know. He didn't know?!?
Then Andreu said something totally bizarre. He said something to the effect that the Armstrong story hadn't been looked into very much (I guess he hasn't read Vrijman's report!), but that the case against Landis would be.
As the interview wrapped up, I was wondering how someone supposedly so involved in cycling could be so uninformed. I mean, first he expressed his opinion that Landis was innocent, but then he was wrong about so many basic facts that it would be hard to trust his opinion on anything...
Did anyone else in this area hear the interview?