Friday, May 11, 2007

Friday Roundup

Today's roundup seems like it will never end. If we keep getting days like this, which is possible over the next couple of weeks, we may start chopping the roundup into "early" and "late" editions. Let us know what you think about that idea. -TBV


On Sep 13 last year, we wrote:

SignOnSandiego, site of SD papers near Floyd, runs an article I misread until an emailer called my attention back to it. It considers a theory that charges against Landis are part of a crusade against Lance. There are suggestions Floyd has some beans to spill, and the case is a way to pressure him into giving it up against Lance. Floyd is quoted as denying. This theory is offered to explain all the folks who have begging Floyd to "come clean" from day one. Yow, it doesn't get more political or Byzantine than this. The same article on the San Diego Union Tribute site, probably the originator.

When Landis says he mentioned it to some press a long time ago, he wasn't making it up; we have what the lawyers like to call "contemporaneous documentation."

The IHT prints an AP piece in which Pierre Bordry states that the LNDD is "irreproachable" in its practices. Independent experts were asked by Bordry to review procedures within the lab and they concluded that no problems existed with the testing of Floyd Landis' samples from last summer's Tour de France:

Bordry appointed the three experts and said the experts' report "responds to all of the arguments put forth by Landis' lawyers." Bordry said he gave the report to Landis' lawyers last week but the cyclist refused to pass it on to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, or USADA. Bordry said he gave the report to USADA on Friday.

Marc translates the Le Monde article:

"We validate the laboratory's results," the experts conclude in their
report. "The set of our verification tests," they continue, "show
that LNDD worked in a professional manner and that the quality of
their analyses cannot be faulted."

Since the start of the case, Floyd Landis' side has claimed that
"numerous errors" were committed: identification errors of the A and
B samples, or the presence of two different persons during the
handling of those samples. [Yes, the French says precisely that. The
writer is confused.]

The experts considered these details as "without effect" on the
results of the tests.

Floyd Landis, to whom a copy of these expert results was sent,
refused to transmit them to the USADA.

According to our information, the USADA nevertheless received the
conclusions of the report on Friday May 11, and will not fail to use
them at the rider's hearing.


My comment: It's interesting that the experts wrote: "the ensemble
of our tests show LNDD worked in a professional manner" (what I
translated as "the set of our tests"). They did not say, "ALL of our
tests showed. . . ." So there must be some mixed results in there,
too. They're hedging. It might even be as weak as "Overall, our
tests showed. . . ."

Pepperdine University announces the Floyd Landis vs USADA Hearings to start Monday May 14 from 9:30AM-5PM , this according to a Pepperdine University press release:

The hearings will begin at 9:30 a.m. concluding at 5 p.m. (PDT) daily in the Darling Trial Courtroom at Pepperdine’s School of Law in Malibu. The hearing will be open to credentialed media and there is very limited seating available to the public by advance reservation only. Those interested in observing the hearing should contact Jessica Jones by email or by calling (310) 506-7114.

The San Diego Union Tribune's Mark Zeigler writes about yesterday's press conference with Floyd Landis concentrating on the Armstrong factor. He notes that the USADA code states that athletes who are willing to give substantial information about other possible doping infractions to further investigations can have their suspensions reduced, the point being that in the Landis accusations against Travis Tygart was Lance Armstrong actually mentioned by name? The alleged IM incident with Jonathan Vaughters is also explored.

Bicycling runs "Floyd Drops The Lance Bomb", and links us leading to a bunch of new visitors. Please poke around and stay a while, it looks like an interesting week coming up.

WTOP along with numerous media outlets,posts the AP's Eddie Pells version of yesterday's Landis press conference revelations about an offer made to Floyd Landis by Travis Tygart of USADA. Tygart declines comment except to call what Landis is claiming, "nonsense"."

The San Jose Mercury News staff writes Elliolt Almond also covered yesterday's news conference in which it was revealed that Travis Tygart offered a better deal for Floyd Landis should Landis turn "state's evidence" against Lance Armstrong. Landis said he made the disclosure yesterday in order to illustrate the character of the prosecution heading into next week's USADA hearings at Pepperdine Law School in Malibu,CA. Landis was quoted as saying:

"I find that offensive and wrong on many different levels," he said during a teleconference from Los Angeles. "Over and above that, I can't speak for Lance. I never saw Lance do anything."

Bloomberg's Dan Bollerman writes not only about Floyd Landis' press conference yesterday and the revelation that he was made a offer of a lighter suspension IF he turned in evidence against Lance Armstrong, but he also notes Lance Armstrong's hastily called press conference responding to the Landis statements:

`I don't fear that type of stuff,'' Armstrong, 35, said. ``I don't fear it at all. I'm emphatically saying I've never taken performance-enhancing drugs.''

The Independent Online prints a Sapa piece covering the same ground noted above.

The Denver Post mentions yesterday's events, but also discusses the larger picture currently in the cycling world. Citing dropping TV ratings, stars busted for doping and fan disillusionment Pat McQuaid is quoted as saying that there is a deep reservoir of support and understanding for the UCI and WADA in Europe.

New York Times/Doreen Carvajal runs a piece about cycling sponsorship woes, naturally citing Landis. This piece was run in the IHT on May 3rd, so you're not having deja-vu.

ProCycling posts the Reuters version of yesterday's Landis press conference concentrating on the Lance Armstrong for a lighter suspension aspect of the story

VeloNews also uses a host of staff and wire reports about yesterdays's Landis press conference This version also makes mention of the fact that the Landis vs USADA hearing will start on Monday and that each side has retained the right to appeal to the CAS should either receive a descision they disagree with.

CBS21 Harrisburg posts a short video report of the Landis press conference from yesterday.

The Turkish Press prints the AFP version of yesterdays events saying that Landis was only warming up for his hearings with USADA to begin on Monday May 14.

The ShowBuzz, People in Hot Water, posts a synopsis of yesterday's Landis events with a bit of a different take and an interesting Landis quote:
"If they (USADA) lose this, they cease to exist. I don't see any other way," Landis said. "It would be no point in them going on.

MediaPost/TVWatch looks at the economics of sports sponsorships, and compare cycling in europe to what might happen in the US if massive scandals emerge in stick-and-ball sports. Phonak and Landis feature prominently, as does OP.

The CyclingNews chimes in with their coverage of yesterday's Landis news conference.

Rant determines that so much has happened in the last 24 hours that he hardly know where to begin. But he starts with this question: even though Pierre Bordry seems to have gotten the OK on the LNDD's procedures, how would we know IF the lab had it right last summer with the Stage 17 results of Floyd Landis? Good question.

TwoBlueDay has little time or patience with professional athletes who always seem in trouble, this includes Floyd Landis. His advise to them is unprintable.

A Walk in the Park believes the IHT story in which Pierre Bordry has confirmed that the LNDD is "irreproachable" in its' testing procedures and that Floyd Landis should hang his head in shame.

The David Kim Show, for whatever reason, finds Dick Pounds' "violating virgins" comment about Floyd Landis and testosterone amusing. wonders if, now that Floyd Landis has refused to "rat" on Lance Armstrong, maybe Lance will make a big contribution to the FFF?

Planet Quirky thinks that the Landis case is morphing into a bad episode of "Law and Order".

Potholes and Roadapples notes the bizarre twists and turns that have occurred as Lancaster Co. PA native Floyd Landis faces his hearing starting Monday. P&R also mentions that the last FFF fund raising event scheduled is tomorrow . "The Keep the Faith" ride will begin at 10:00AM and wind through the roads Floyd once road near Farmersville, PA. Of course he will not be there, he will be in Murrieta preparing for next week:

The deck has seemed stacked against Landis since last summer. At least some people on Saturday will be keeping the faith

Tour Squad has had it with cycling and doping. It's got such a bad vibe now that he wonders if it will ever be the same.

Adventures in Alex sees the revelations yesterday that Floyd Landis was offered a deal to be another example of the unchecked cancer that is USADA. But, he also sees a real danger that one athlete could turn on another, and perhaps lie to get a better bargain from the ADAs.

CrystelZENmud now thinks that the Landis case has entered Alice's Wonderland, and gives us another plug. It's worth mentioning the influential blog that dug into the Duke Lacrosse case, and prosecutorial botches there, Durham in Wonderland. credits Floyd "Sammy the Bull" Landis for not rolling over on Lance Armstrong.

Sounding Furious references the NYT article above, which speculates on the loss of sponsorships in cycling due to current and past doping offenses by riders,wondering if this is just the first wave in a huge exodus from the sport. The first response to the post is very entertaining.

Dugard feels that now that Lance Armstrong has been pulled in the Landis affair, we're going to actually get somewhere:

So why's Floyd doing this? Public opinion. On the verge of his hearing he's trying to cast doubt on the ethics and motivations of USADA. This is Floyd's way of reminding everybody that it's not about the drugs, it's about trying to bust the biggest name possible, for the biggest possible news splash

The wonder what Lance Armstrong knew about the offer to Floyd Landis, and exactly when he knew it? He is convinced that he now knows what he had suspected.

Sabernomics retells much of the Landis case's twist and turns through yesteday, and feels it would be a comedy, if it didn't involve the ruin of one man's reputation and his quest for justice. He then proposes an interesting solution to the doping problem. Oh and thanks for the plug!

Strike 'em Out Throw 'em Out in an eclectic post about individual vs team sports, thinks that Floyd Landis either made his defense easier with his statements about Armstrong yesterday, or merely deflected publicity from himself.

Steroid Nation gives us a nice summary of yesterday's Landis/Armstrong news noting that it has all now become a "steroid soap opera".

Ramblin'Egg is shaking his head while keeping an open mind about the Landis case in light of yesterdays "down low" revelations.

More Palavar thinks that Floyd Landis has been employing the "spaghetti defense" throw it all out there and see what sticks. Yesterday's disclosure that Floyd was offered a deal to turn evidence in on Lance Armstrong does ring true, and more and more Floyd seems guilty.

The Fanhouse Sports Blog thinks that Floyd Landis will say anything to deflect guilt from himself. The Lance Armstrong revelation from yesterday is just another in a long list of lame excuses.

Spinopsys thinks much the same, without the snarky tone, calling the "Last acts of a desperate man."

Velomech uses some very colorful language when describing his disgust for what is currently happening to Floyd Landis, he is also not renewing his cycling license in protest of USA Cycling's lack of support for Floyd.

VitalAccurateThinking wants the "jerks" to just leave Lance alone as he notes yesterday's Landis press conference.

Spinnin' Wheel wants to give Travis Tygart a chance to speak for himself in the Landis scenario from yesterday before making judgement, but still he wonders if Lance Armstrong truly was the white whale so sought by Ahab.

The Angry Fan also picks up the white whale angle.

Triple Crankset makes note of tomorrow's "Keep the Faith Ride" for Floyd Landis in Lancaster,Co PA, and also thinks it seems the deck is stacked against Floyd in his upcoming hearing starting Monday.

The Bike Show will be back on the airwaves starting Monday May 14 with,among numerous other things, coverage of Floyd Landis' doping "tribunal".

Can't Holder Tongue
is consciously maintaining innocent, naive belief in Landis and Armstrong... but not Hamilton.

Burt Friggin' Hoovis says this is ALL about the search for the Holy Grail -- Lance.

Getoutdoors covers the Armstrong deal, and wonders if Landis is now a liar as well as a doper. Not that it matters, because who gives a f**k about cycling.

Next Big Thing is sure Landis is innocent.

Beer And TV: Drunken Thoughts says what Landis should have said right away was:
a) "That's right, bitches. I got enough testosterone for all y'all!"
b) "It's cool. I'll just sign with the San Francisco Giants next year."
c) "I think they switched my sample with Barry White's."


Anonymous said...

ORG here ....

ESPN's version of events

Interesting passage:

Contacted by, Tygart repeated his boilerplate response to all inquiries about the case, albeit with some anger in his voice. "If Mr. Landis wants to waive the rule and allow USADA to comment, I will be more than happy to comment on his nonsense," the lawyer said.

Landis fired back: "USADA has followed very few of its rules and conveniently, they follow this one," he said.

Jacobs could not be reached for comment.

strbuk said...

Yes, Bonnie DeSimone wrote a great piece about yesterday's events, it's posted in Thursday's Roundup. BTW ORG, thanks so much for covering the Armstrong press briefing.


Anonymous said...


Did you cover both events? If so, who actually stated the suspension would be one month? According to several news reports, it was Landis, but your report on Armstrongs conference call seemed to indicate it was Armstrongs lawyer, Stapleton.


Anonymous said...

Stapleton and Armstrong both said it was one-month on several occassions. Armstrong even called it a "1/24 penalty for turning someone in."

On another note, the New York Times has an article about the current state of cycling (dated today, I know they have had others on this toipic)


The Landis case is casting a shadow that is particularly affecting less-prominent races. Mr. Landis, who won the 2006 Tour de France, tested positive for synthetic testosterone after his victory in the 17th stage. He faces the loss of his title and a two-year ban if an arbitration panel, scheduled to meet Monday, upholds the positive test.

Since the Landis affair became public, the headlines about doping scandals have been relentless, with more top riders tarnished by a Spanish doping investigation called OperaciĆ³n Puerto.

Anonymous said...

ORG posted the note above

Anonymous said...

I really am curious if there was a on month suspension offer after the B's came back. If that is the case Travis knows his evidence sucks and has shown some of his hand.

Given that I'm still not confident he will get a fair shake from the AA panel.

Atown, Tx. said...

The timeline says that the B sample results were known before Jacobs was hired in early September; the conversation was the first between Jacobs and Tygart about Landis, and about a week before the Union Tribune story that mentioned a possible deal.

It's possible Tygart knew he had a weak case, and dangled this as a way to get a plea without having to prosecute it. Since then, they have gotten progressively harder in stance.


Anonymous said...

ORG here ...

Good pickup on the NYT article. I thought was having Deja-vu on this article but double checked the date and it was today.

In case you did not know, the New York Times owns the IHT.

Anonymous said...

Don't know if you saw it but on the same page as the Floyd report on Mr. Bordry is trying to get ahead of the onslaught next week with his own statements. He says in a round about way Floyd is guilty of doping and there shouldn't be a minimum threshold for testosterone.

Atown, Tx.

Anonymous said...

ORG here ...

Regarding the Bordry's statements.

His cyclingnews comments about the need for thresholds are interesting in light of the "traces" remark about the b-sample tests. Is Bordry making new defintions of doping, as was speculated here before? Is the definition of a "trace" any delta of less than 0 while delta's below -3 are actually needed to constitute an "official positive?" Bordey seems to be saying exactly that. No?

Second is regarding his IHT comments that the lab is "irreproachable" Does everyone have a short memory? Didn't he call the wrong sample number merely "typing mistakes" only to find they indeed match another riders number and were corrected in the LNDD's "original version" of the LDP?

Hasn't his "irreproachable" lab been criticzed by Vrajiman and blew it with the Landaluze case? Hasn't his lab violated protocol and made silly mistakes. Given this track record, he only invites criticism by using such language. Maybe, however, this is something that was lost in translation?

Finally, given all the stonewalling from USADA about documents, it is nothing short of outrageous that Bordrey criticized Landis for not giving USADA a copy of the test. Where the hell does it say it Landis resposnsible to provide USADA with documents? Is the world is upside down?

Anonymous said...

Has anyone seen this story about Honchar before? It was written last June I think, during the Tour

Honchar named in doping probe

Does anyone know the results of this probe?

And now he isn't competing for 30 days because of abnormal results? This seems to be more than a coincidence.

swimyouidiot said...

TBV, I think you would be wise to separate things into early and late divisions (like Then when we (the readers) have covered the early bit, we wouldn't have to look at those summaries again when the new stuff comes in.

Geez, on the Armstrong day I can't believe you summarized so much stuff. I wonder if the hearing itself will even get that much coverage?

By the way, how do you search the blogs? The news is "easy," but how do you get to the blogs?