The CyclingNews posts a summary of the Landis appearances at last weeks' ToC with modest amounts of snarky attitude. It mentions the fund raiser for Davis Phinney that Landis attended where a Tour de France bike of Landis's was donated. Landis did make several interesting comments at that event, a BMC function he attended with old friend and former Phonak team owner Andy Rihs :
Landis did concede that being at the race as a spectator was not easy for him. "I don't enjoy being at a bike race when I can't race! I'm a cycling fan but it is painful to not race. What matters is the system needs to be changed so that this doesn't happen again. I'm not saying that everyone in the past has been innocent or guilty, I don't know. But one thing is for sure, if the guy that wins the Tour can't come up with the resources to even fight the case then there is no chance for anybody."
Landis' presence at this event, which was primarily organised as a team presentation for the new BMC team, did make sense due to his long standing friendship with BMC owner Andy Rihs. However, there was a little speculation in the air of whether this was an indication of a team for Landis to make a return to professional cycling. "I have no plans right now," Landis chuckled. "Andy is my friend and has supported me from the beginning. He is wonderful for this sport and the way he was treated by the UCI was despicable. That friendship will never change and that is why I am here. Every day right now is focused on fixing the problem."
Sportingo runs a revised version of Rant's piece questioning the UCI's new anti-doping programme.
Racejunkie writes about last evening's Cyclism Sunday Preview on VS. He mainly concentrates on what he perceives to be the shortcomings of Al Trautwig, but also appreciates what he calls the "Landis Propaganda Hour". To elaborate further, the Landis case was covered with a re run of his interview done for VS's ToC coverage. The interview had originally been done at the FFF event in Brooklyn. It contained a small amount of additional footage in which Floyd mentions the science of his case and its availability on the web. He also comments on his hip resurfacing, and his enthusiasm about getting back into competition. Other than Trautwig the hosts of the program included Bob Roll, Paul Sherwen, and Floyd's coach Robbie Ventura, who were then asked to comment on the Landis case. All of them expressed varying degrees of support for Landis, citing slightly different reasons for that support. In a separate piece later in the program Pat McQuaid comments on the impending UCI anti doping program. McQuaid notes its' expense to the organization and the fact that it will be the most extensive program of its kind in the world of sports making cycling the pioneer in the fight against PEDs. McQuaid also briefly touches on the UCI vs ASO dispute citing the fact that it's all about who gets the money.
Rant gently vents on those who attack the messenger, in this case those who are attempting to savage Michael Hiltzik on DPF.
Tyler at SmithFamilyWeb.org has at least six things to be happy about, one of them is Floyd Landis' innocence.
Learningtolovela thought that Floyd looked dapper at the last stage of the ToC last Sunday. She notices that the Peter Gunn theme is appropriately played while Floyd walked into her field of view with his "supervisors".
c'Dude went for a ride in the Wisconsin snow using Floyd Landis as a distraction to help with the really tough parts.
Amy's Running Life puts up the Landis at ToC pix she promised earlier.
On the Daily Peloton Forums discussion/analysis continues with Michael Hiltzik in anticipation of tomorrow's on line chat with the Pulitzer Prize winning reporter. He is being pretty brutally attacked by people who don't like what he is saying, and he's been quite competent at defending his facts and objectivity.
Thought for the Day
The first problem with defending or rejecting a judicial result based on a technicality is that “technicality” doesn’t have a very specific meaning. It’s sometimes used rhetorically to argue that one’s opponent is relying on the letter but not the spirit of the law, or that a theory advocates some result that appears to be outside the law’s purpose, even if it’s within the law’s mandate.