French TV interview, TBV coverage here, also AP summary, via ABC/ESPN, and CyclingNews.
Daily Peloton runs a story by Dave Shields about what Cycling can learn from other sports, particularly motor racing. This is in line with our story on the USAC/CART split, "Ties that Unwind", following Landis' "take down the UCI" comment.
Almost zero Landis content, but Tyler Hamilton participated in a Triathlon Relay today, on a team sponsored by Howard Jacobs, the Athlete's Lawyer (and Landis's). At stake, a $100,000 prize for beating 8 hours. Tyler cleaned clock on the competition by over 14 minutes in his cycling leg, but got a 4 minute penalty for not dismounting soon enough - there's a line on the ground thou shalt not cross on the bike in triathlon. It ain't like le Tour. The team's runner was halted for the four minutes, but still could have run a time well within his capability for the prize. But he went out too fast and melted down on course and came to a full stop at 24 miles, finally in at 8:17. Who knows if the penalty stop messed him up physically or mentally. No $33k paycheck for any of them, but the 8:00 looks beatable.
At DPF, Landis talks about frustration with the system:
What is your opinion of an agency (not cycling in this hypothetical) created by Congress and funded by tax money with no oversight and which requires people to notify them 24 hours a day of their location and activities so that they can be tested is some way. Does that seem to be a violation of any rights or does that seem reasonable. Also, let's assume that this hypothetical agency monitors a category of careers which have only the option to enroll in the program due to the fact that no other option exists. Keep in mind that there is, in this hypothetical, a punishment for failing to notify the agency. This sounds, to me that is, like the treatment for someone who has already been convicted of something.Then oversight of Labs,
Am I mistaken in the statement that the labs exist to perform scientific tests which are forwarded to the agencies (WADA for example) who later decide what is justice and how is should be served. Or is it reasonable that a lab director or employee is commenting on what is the outcome of a specific test. What I'm trying to get at is, it seems to me that a lab which is given a set of guidelines, should perform a test on a given sample and forward it to the "police" and no longer have any say, or care to have any say, in the outcome of the process thereafter.and elsewhere
What I'm saying is that the labs should feel no level of failure because the rules and guidelines are indisputable and they do nothing more than hand results over to the next level of prosecution. The mistakes and other mishandling of things are a totaly different level and after a few problems the lab should be suspended. That is, assuming that the line in the sand is final and there are no exceptions.Blogs
Rant thinks about USADA (and AFT), and wonders if The Fix is in.
PodiumCafe notes that Graham Watson leaves Landis completely out of his 2007 calendar, which is consistent with his firm and expressed belief Floyd was doped on Stage 17.
Brand Destruction Research, which has covered Landis before here and here, reads the AP report of the French interview, and concludes, "Sorry, Floyd, but you're fucked."
TBV's opinion is that Landis was intercoursed the instant the whole thing broke. A lot of his early PR work made things worse, and BDR is right to think that will have long term consequences. But he's wrong in several respects, not least whether Landis had any choice but to have B test done at the same lab, or that he has much affect on the speed of the resolution -- unless he wants to plead guilty.
Florida Masochist reads AP story of French interview, and says, "Give it up, Floyd."
Jeredb thinks pro cycling sucks, and the Landis case is part of it.
September 07: Hearing Award
October 07: Hue's Hearing Appraisal
November 07: Major document Release
January 08: Larry's Curb Your Anticipation
Sunday, November 12, 2006