Sunday, February 25, 2007

Sunday Roundup

Today's VS coverage of the Tour of California interviewed Landis before the start, and he was wearing what looked to be a third suit. He may never break this record for days in a row wearing a tie.

VS also ran a feature about the Slipstream/ACE antidoping program. The Slipstream piece was introduced by Ligget with an opinion that Cycling's doping problem is overstated, which would make him one of the sheep in denial by Kimmage's measure.

KNTV NBC11 has posted an extended 4.5 minutes interview with Landis from sometime during this past week's "tour of innocence". Though the reporter is not seen nor identified, the questions posed are good ones and the answers given do give some additional illumination to topics covered in other interviews that occurred during this past week.

Sportingo summarizes the slow disintegration of WADA's case against Floyd Landis.

The Signal News from Santa Clarita Valley prints commentary from Cary Osborne who thinks that perhaps the bad press received by Landis was good press for the ToC.

The San Luis Obispo Tribune thinks that cycling is continuing to grow in popularity, despite Floyd Landis.

The Long Beach Press Telegram's Doug Krikorian prints perhaps the snarkiest opinion piece ever written on cycling. There is little Landis content, but what's there is snarkworthy as well.

The Lompoc Record
prints a photo of Landis with a fan and a small blurb from Saturday's stage of the ToC. I wonder if Roger Ramjet was anywhere nearby?

CyclingNews quotes Tygart criticising the "wiki defense" because the rules forbid the ADA side from saying anything in response, which he hopes will change with changes to the WADA code.

At tdwsport, there are some pictures of Landis, Andy Rihs, Davis Phinney, and Alexadre Moos at a fundraiser for the Phinney Foundation on Tuesday night. Go to Image Desk-> Free Access-> 20071861 21/02/2007 Cycling Floyd Landis foundraising.

PelotonJim tells us why the current state of affairs in the Landis case are so important, referring to an earlier piece by him about the importance of protocols.

Rant follows up about pressure and GC/MS instruments, and addresses some of the pooh-poohing comments at DPF.

LAist notes that as this year's final stage of the ToC is being run, last year's Golden Boy is missing.

Cycliste Moderne wonders if the Landis revelations from this week actually have legs.

Rubber Side Down
thinks that even though things may be looking up for Landis , he is not out of the woods yet.

FireDogLake thinks Landis won't get his reputation back, but might be able to make a living again.

Thought for the Day

If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten
lava, let'em go, because, man, they're gone.



Anonymous said...

ORG here ....

TBV, et. al:

I've been thinking about the requirements for the arbs when they write up their decision. Guilty or innocent, their seems to be a lot of issues that need to be dealth with. Some of this is happening now behind closed doors (discovery, USADA's right to test b-samples versus the athletes rights, scheduling a hearing in a timely manner). Some of it will be argued in public at the open hearing (positivity criteria, contaimination, lab procedures which includes technicians on "a" and "b", sample numbers, pressures, manuels, etc. etc.).

When the arbs rule, they can chose to be opaque and just say "yes" or "no" without explanation? Or, are their rules covering the detailing of their reasons, and even allow dissenting opinions? Or, is it up to the panel to handle it as they see fit?

Because of the very public nature of this case, it seems to deserve more attention/detail than the typical case when the arbs hand down their ruling. Frowm your reading of the "rules for arbs" and how they explained their decisions in other cases, do you see this as an issue. That is, are you comfortable the arbs will fully explain their decision (either way) or will we be left to argue "why" long after they rule?

Anonymous said...

In my humble opinion, those of us who are emotionally invested in this case, and in cycling in general, need to take the next step and go beyond just reading about it and try to educate people like Doug Krikorian cited above. Sure, it's not going to change some people's opinions, but you might be surprised at how many people who argue with you at first will later start looking at the facts and reconsider their positions. My girlfriend has been quite entertained watching me debate (via email) with the sports writers and editors who get mentioned here at TBV, but I have had quite a few of them who, based on their responses to my emails, actually seem to have listened. When I sent some information to a sportswriter from the Mercury News, he was gracious enough to respond, "That’s one of the hardest things about our job as sportswriters because we’re sportswriters not chemists yet we’re writing about things like we’re experts. We’re not. Our opinions are based on what WADA and the United States Anti-Doping Agency tell us". If we only manage to get half of them to understand the difference between high testosterone and high T/E ratio, then I'll feel like we've accomplished something.

Anonymous said...

ORG here ....


You're being called names over in the comment section of SN

So, are you really Dick Cheney?

DBrower said...

ORG, I think the arbs can be as opaque as they like, and a lot will depend on what decision they reach. My guess is that if they nail him or let him off on a Landaluze procedural error, then they will be very opaque, to preclude second guessing. They'll be less opaque if they let him off, because they'll have to identify very special circumstances that won't apply to any other case.

On the guy who is being skeptical at SN, he's far from the worst we've seen. I figure if the rhetoric is getting to that level, we must be worth the trouble to attack.

In terms of the credibility of the claims being made, I'm reporting and passing them on. I don't usually accept them at face value. If they aren't right, it's no skin off my nose. I think it's better to hear the criticism now rather than at a hearing.

Enjoy today's ToC wrap. I'm hoping CSC throws some more bombs just to keep it lively.


Unknown said...

Off subject, but why hasn't Velonews or Cyclingnews presented a serious, investigative report regarding the Floyd Case?

In today's Cyclingnews, they buddy up to the USADA and try (once again) to make Floyd the bad guy and that the USADA could never make a mistake.

Too bad Cyclingnews didn't have the balls to ask Tygart about testing the remaining B samples....

Anonymous said...

some interesting photos of FL & Andy Rihs at

Terry21 said...

ESPN has article up on Landis, Lab mistake.

I haven't read it, just trying to get it posted here.

DBrower said...

Jeff, we had that in the Friday Roundup. One of the sidebars even mentions TBV.


DBrower said...


I don't expect either CN or VN to get out front because they are too closely tied to the powers of the sport.

CN is non-US, and carries an outright anti-Landis bias that they see as honesty about the state of doping in the sport. They see the concerns of the likes of us as blinkered, flag-waving American naivete.

VN is on the fence, and is unlikely to move until the outcome is obvious.

That's why the best reporting is coming from those not so directly tied to the sport, like the LA Times and ESPN.

Should things change, all the sheep will migrate the other direction.


DBrower said...


Sometimes Mrs. TBV wonders about me too, in an "entertained" way.

All we can do is what we can do, trying to be as polite and informative as we can be. I think that's better than shrill rhetoric.

thanks for stopping by,


Terry21 said...

Dang I tried. Wasn't sure if it was the same link.

When I went to their main page it was one of the links offered, but it is not now. Thanks.

Anonymous said...


I agree, no shrill rhetoric. What I'm talking about is talking to the individual sportwriters, one on one, and giving them specific information and answering specific questions, particularly when the "facts" they present in a story are factually incorrect. If one proceeds diplomatically, most will listen, even if they don't agree.