Thursday, December 21, 2006

Thursday Roundup

Quote of the Day

A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers.
HL Mencken

Last Minute Shopping
There may be some openings for the Jan 20-27 Floyd Landis Power Camp. Have you been good or bad this year?

CyclingNews carries announcement of the immanent Floyd Fairness Fund; also covered by by flahute blog, skeptically.

After all is said, VeloNews picks Landis as top North America cyclist of the year.

LancasterOnline cover Paul and Arlene Landis (the parents) talking to the Rotary Club about their experience, but not about the case. In another story, Arlene says she's "never felt so prayed for."

Philly.Com is representative of many outlets picking up the Landaluze story and its possible implications for FL's case.

AP via IHT has Bordry dropping the separate French case against Landaluce, and Landis getting the last word.

Different AP/IHT story quotes British Cycling head Brian Cookson, warning those involved in current doping scandals to stay away from the 2007 TdF.
"This will be a historic event, in the heart of one of the world's great cities, a fantastic opportunity for our sport," British Cycling president Brian Cookson said. "We really do not want to see this tarnished by a repeat of the doping scandals of 2006, so, frankly, we urge all those with involvement in various investigations to stay away."

The story of "Lance vs. Landis" in the Leadville 100 hits the big time with a short Sal Ruibal piece in USA Today.

Eurotrash Thursday at PezCycling has two mentions of Landis. One concerns yesterday's annoucement of the Landaluze descision, the other is regarding former Phonak director John Lelangue and his new gig behind the mike.

CyclingNews Letters, late in the day, think Landaluze doesn't help as he's branded a doper who got off on a technicality; and it takes gall to ask people to pay for getting a doper off on a technicality. And a long string debating Armstrong and the Basso signing.

Over at the DP Forums spirited debate continues over the FFF and athletes' rights. Will weighs in with his opinion in response to the following from the always vocal chris t.
Athletes rights for due process is important, but less important than athletes rights to compete on their natural abilities and accept their rewards according to achievements.

To which Will replies:
You are dead wrong on this. Why can't they be equally considered? Take due proces a step further. Athletes have a right to a fair forum, accountability of those who they trust to test and discipline them as well as harmonized programs that oversee the whole process independant of where a problem springs up.

Also at DPF, we get some numbers and a the start of a discussion about economics of testing.

Puppies of the Day
In a DPF thread about Jeanson, Steve in ATL comes up with a new image:
"as Dear and Fluffy as Floyd"

No response to my suggestion for T shirt motto: "Daily Peloton Forums: Fluffy as Floyd!"

CyclingForums has the following endorsement of the USPS, non-cycling division:
> Eric Hollenbeck wrote:
> > Floyd Landis
> > Murietta CA 92562

> > Trust USPS to take care of the rest ;-)
> > Bill Bryson in one of his books talks about oddly (incompletely)

> > addressed mail still reaching him.
> I'd address it as:
> Floyd Landis, Winner of the Tour de France
> Murietta CA 92562

Strangely enough, that would probably work. I had a friend in Utah
that would receive mail with nothing more for an address than the zip
code and his nickname! Small town = famous person

Steroid Nation looks at Landaluce, and says:
Sport has moved not only into the business realm, but inevitably into the forensic (or legal) arena.

Gone are the says when the fellow who hit the tape first won the race. As with the 2006 Tour de France, winners may not be declared for months after an event.

One can expect the same forensic issues to pop up now in sports: lengthy docket, political influence, twisted logic, decision based on trivia. There is no going back. Sport has entered into the forensic, bureaucratic era, never to return.

Steroid Nation also looks at the British Cycling pronouncement that dopers should not come to next years TdF, and says,
Two thoughts:

1. If only 'clean' cyclists need apply for the 2007 Tour de France (starting in London) who will show up? Two kids with training wheels, a guy on a tricycle, and a clown on a unicycle?

2. Or any number of cyclists will show up, on bicycles built for 2. One seat for the rider, and one seat for his lawyer.

Podium Cafe looks at Landaluze and Landis, and isn't thrilled at the technical outcome, while still thinking it helps Floyd.

Sports Publications
ponders the fate of Floyd Landis.

TdfBlog looks at Landaluze too.

YardBarker looks at Landaluze andLandis' comments with a jaundiced eye:
Apparently a lab was not up to UCI standards, and a fellow cyclist, Landaluze was cleared after 18 months because of this. The type of mix up is still unclear.

Floyd had this to say,

"Going through what I am now, I feel personally for Landaluze and hope that everyone recognizes that it has taken him 18 difficult months to clear his name from what was revealed to be a grievous error by the LNDD ... The track record of scientific misconduct at Chatenay-Malabry seems to grow by the day."

What exactly is scientific misconduct anyway? One of the technicians forgot to take off his goggles? Too bad for Floyd that nobody trusts him, and we all stopped listening months ago.

Dugard reminisces about his top 5 tour moments of 2006, and plugs his books in time for last minute shopping.

Neil@Road has some more pix of the Witt Memorial.

Snark O' The Day
MKiecker snarks about the non-attempt and Landis trying a fixie:
As the track is getting cleared Zabriskie and Landis walk down to talk to Roger Young, etc. Roger pulls out one of his pace lining track bikes and the two of them take a look. With his jeans cuffed up, sweatshirt and tennis shoes still on Landis tosses a leg over and begins to ride. He quickly made his way off the apron to the banks and ramped it up. As he came around it was evident that Landis has no idea what a fixed gear bicycle is or how to ride on the track. He looked like he tried to coast but luckily because he wasn't clipped-in dropped his legs and just let the cranks spin round-de-round down on the apron at speed. After many people were gasping at the thought of being able to watch the doper break his other hip he moved back up on the banks and got his feet on the pedals. However now he's pedaling so god damn slow he's about to pedal strike and crash. Coming off the banks back to the apron he made it back unharmed. Stick to your patches Landis; you seem to know those much better then riding the track.

And in Conclusion
C (lee) Z has a friend who came around for a while yesterday.

Warning: the red pants look like they could be loaded.



Anonymous said...

ORG here …


You note the bad news for Landis - the CAS refused to even listen to any argument about science or lab error. But is this really new? Hasn’t the CAS done this in many other cases? So, this is nothing new.

What is new is they let Landaluze off on a procedural error by the lab. In the past, this would even listen to these arguments as well. Didn’t you note a case where the sample was stuck in customs for days un-refrigerated and that was allowed?

The way I see it, the only new thing in the case is the procedural error, which is good for Landis. The rest we have seen before.

Do I have this correct?

MMan said...

Gone are the says when the fellow who hit the tape first won the race. As with the 2006 Tour de France, winners may not be declared for months after an event.

One can expect the same forensic issues to pop up now in sports: lengthy docket, political influence, twisted logic, decision based on trivia. There is no going back. Sport has entered into the forensic, bureaucratic era, never to return.

If this stands, I suspect sports will disappear. What's the point of participating or watching if the guy who comes in sixth wins two years later because someone doped, someone else misspelled a word on the entry form, someone's coach sexually harrassed a corpse, blah, blah, blah.

flahute said...

It's not so much that I'm skeptical about Floyd ... I think he stands a better shot of actually having done it clean than did Armstrong, after all ... but I'm not sure about the begging other people to pay for your defense.

I like the idea of an Athlete's Fairness Organization (or Floyd Fairness Fund), to help cyclists defend themselves against doping charges ... I think it should go towards helping grass-root cyclists who are accused (like Jason Sager and Bart Gillespie), rather than millionaires.