News BBC Sport quotes what appears to be the same interview cited below...
""Even if I'm proved innocent, my reputation is ruined.This whole affair has ruined my life.
An interview in Het Laatste Nieuws and Gazet van Antwerpen has been filtering back, first on this DPF discussion, then later on this Frech blog (translated), finally in an APF report from VeloNews. Taking no prisoners, Landis will probably not be joining Quick Step. The confusing parts are whether he thinks he'll race again. As I said in the DPF thread, there are probably some context errors in the article and the translation. The first snip says,
But I don't think I will race in 2007. Who wants to have me?
I'm putting all my energy in repairing my name and in the war against a system that gives athletes zero rights.
and the concluding:
And even if I win, I won't be back. In the current system I will never be a rider again."
My reading is that he doesn't think he can win the case quickly and still get a ride this season, and that he thinks the system must change in a significant way for him to ride again in 2008. It is not saying he won't compete again, but that he needs to win the case AND change the power structure to come back. I don't know if I'm that pessimistic -- should he win the case, he could legally come back, and I don't know if the old-boy-network would exclude him as he seems to think. Or maybe he doesn't think he can get motivated in that circumstance.
There is a LeMonde article reported in this Spanish blog, translated. The blog reads it differently than I did yesterday, but I still don't make sense of it. There is something going on with the WADA UNESCO treaty, with implications of France having not signed on to it yet for the Landis case.
John Hawks Weblog entry "Is the Dawn of Gene Doping at Hand?"cites the AP article about WADA and DNA testing with analysis of the testing's actual relevence......
This is the same principle that incriminated Floyd Landis' urine samples -- it wasn't the presence of a high testosterone level, it was the presence of an isotopic signature (supposedly) distinctive to synthetic testosterone.
There is a lot of sense in the piece, suggesting WADA is drumming up FUD to justify funding. Hawks notes that someone who is good enough to genetically hack athletes would also be a candidate for a Nobel prize for medicine, and untold riches for curing various diseases. A good argument would be that the money WADA is spending on genetic doping research would be better spent on improving existing tests, doing large population studies to really validate existing tests, and improve supervision and harmonization of the labs. Not to mention learning what "due process" means. But none of that is as sexy as chasing hypothetical genetic dopers.