Although I'm not yet done with Floyd's book, I'm pretty well into the doping allegations section. While I understand that this is his side of the story, I think there are some very important revelations/facts brought out in the book (all of which can be easily checked for validity which makes me trust them to be true, especially since they've not been denied)
Basically, they all center around the idea that the UCI is an organization run by people who believe all the cyclists to be guilty and to be servants who should toe the party line and do what they're told.
About 5 years ago, the pro team Landis was on, Mercury, went bankrupt. They couldn't pay the riders. However, before every season, the UCI requires each team to put a bank deposit/guarantee that can cover all the rider's salaries in just such a situation. However, if the guarantee is used, the team has to be suspended, pretty much destroying their chances of getting a new sponsior and racing for that season. After 30 days of not getting paid, the rider can write to request their salary. Landis did and was asked by the UCI to give Mercury another chance to pay. He agreed to do so.
After another 4 months went by, L:andis was majorly in debt on his credit cards so he requested again for his guarantee. The UCI again asked for him to give Mercury more time. He agreed but come fall (about 3 months later), Landis had a lwayer sent a letter to the UCI stating that he would have to pursue legal options to retrieve his money because he was in debt and the bank guarantee did not seem to be working. The UCI head wrote him a letter saying that the UCI did not believe they'd broken any rules and that, "such an agressive approach might perhaps work in the U.S.A., but it does not in Europe and most definitely not with me...I have taken order to our legal department to take the tone of your approach into account when it comes to following up on your request." Landis had a warning added to his file.
About a year later (2002 TDF), Landis was with US Postal. At the TDF he was asked by reporters about the status of the riders from Mercury getting paid. he told them he never received the money. Within two hours of the interview, he, Johan, Lance and the US Postal team managers had recieved a note stating that Landis had 48 hours to retract his statement or he'd be suspended indefinitely. Landis refused because he thought he'd done nothing wrong. Lance warned him not to cross the UCI, "It doesn't matter if you're right. You can't say things like that about the UCI. You're going to have to deal with them in the future, and you don't want them to be against you." Landis eventually apologized. He still did not get his money until THREE YEARS after his first request.
Now, fast forward to 2006. Landis has tested positive but is denying it. Pat McQuaid (head of UCI) gives him a call. "I'm not saying you're a bad guy," he told Landis, "I'm sure you weren't doing anything that everyone else wasn't doing. You're just the unlucky one who got caught. You should change your tactics and accept a suspension because there's no way you can win." Landis told him he wouldn't change tactics because he didn't do it and McQuaid replied, "You'll end up penniess." Now, putting aside whether you think every cyclist dopes or not, as the head of the UCI, if you truly believe that (as McQuaid was saying here to Landis) how can you honestly feel fine with some guys getting caught and others winning, and calling THEM "clean?" Further, do you believe that an organization run in the strongarm manner that the UCI appears to be (by more accoutns than Landis' BTW) and that believes ALL riders to be guilty would afford the rider a fair chance? Whether or not it played into the testing, the release of the results before the B sample or everything that followed, I think it's pretty clear the UCI was not fond of Landis. He'd made them, in their eyes, look bad.
Even further, McQuaid was quoted in the paper as saying that the reason they released the info about Floyd before the B sample was that, "the French laboratory has a close connection with L'Equipe, and the UCI preferred that the information not come through the press." So instead of sanctioning a lab for not foloowing the rules, he decides to break them himself?!
I have no idea if Landis is guilty or not but I think there's more than enough questionable practices by UCI and the French lab to say that they have not acted properly and have not fully proven Landis' guilt.
Anyways, read the book for yourself and see what you think.
Basically, they all center around the idea that the UCI is an organization run by people who believe all the cyclists to be guilty and to be servants who should toe the party line and do what they're told.
About 5 years ago, the pro team Landis was on, Mercury, went bankrupt. They couldn't pay the riders. However, before every season, the UCI requires each team to put a bank deposit/guarantee that can cover all the rider's salaries in just such a situation. However, if the guarantee is used, the team has to be suspended, pretty much destroying their chances of getting a new sponsior and racing for that season. After 30 days of not getting paid, the rider can write to request their salary. Landis did and was asked by the UCI to give Mercury another chance to pay. He agreed to do so.
After another 4 months went by, L:andis was majorly in debt on his credit cards so he requested again for his guarantee. The UCI again asked for him to give Mercury more time. He agreed but come fall (about 3 months later), Landis had a lwayer sent a letter to the UCI stating that he would have to pursue legal options to retrieve his money because he was in debt and the bank guarantee did not seem to be working. The UCI head wrote him a letter saying that the UCI did not believe they'd broken any rules and that, "such an agressive approach might perhaps work in the U.S.A., but it does not in Europe and most definitely not with me...I have taken order to our legal department to take the tone of your approach into account when it comes to following up on your request." Landis had a warning added to his file.
About a year later (2002 TDF), Landis was with US Postal. At the TDF he was asked by reporters about the status of the riders from Mercury getting paid. he told them he never received the money. Within two hours of the interview, he, Johan, Lance and the US Postal team managers had recieved a note stating that Landis had 48 hours to retract his statement or he'd be suspended indefinitely. Landis refused because he thought he'd done nothing wrong. Lance warned him not to cross the UCI, "It doesn't matter if you're right. You can't say things like that about the UCI. You're going to have to deal with them in the future, and you don't want them to be against you." Landis eventually apologized. He still did not get his money until THREE YEARS after his first request.
Now, fast forward to 2006. Landis has tested positive but is denying it. Pat McQuaid (head of UCI) gives him a call. "I'm not saying you're a bad guy," he told Landis, "I'm sure you weren't doing anything that everyone else wasn't doing. You're just the unlucky one who got caught. You should change your tactics and accept a suspension because there's no way you can win." Landis told him he wouldn't change tactics because he didn't do it and McQuaid replied, "You'll end up penniess." Now, putting aside whether you think every cyclist dopes or not, as the head of the UCI, if you truly believe that (as McQuaid was saying here to Landis) how can you honestly feel fine with some guys getting caught and others winning, and calling THEM "clean?" Further, do you believe that an organization run in the strongarm manner that the UCI appears to be (by more accoutns than Landis' BTW) and that believes ALL riders to be guilty would afford the rider a fair chance? Whether or not it played into the testing, the release of the results before the B sample or everything that followed, I think it's pretty clear the UCI was not fond of Landis. He'd made them, in their eyes, look bad.
Even further, McQuaid was quoted in the paper as saying that the reason they released the info about Floyd before the B sample was that, "the French laboratory has a close connection with L'Equipe, and the UCI preferred that the information not come through the press." So instead of sanctioning a lab for not foloowing the rules, he decides to break them himself?!
I have no idea if Landis is guilty or not but I think there's more than enough questionable practices by UCI and the French lab to say that they have not acted properly and have not fully proven Landis' guilt.
Anyways, read the book for yourself and see what you think.