Saturday, June 23, 2007

Saturday Roundup

PPOL:News announces the Huntington, NY appearance by Floyd Landis at The Book Revue on June 28th where he will speak about "Positively False" and sign copies of the book as well.

The Sydney Morning Herald posts the usual AFP story about the suspense surrounding the Tour de France starting in two weeks without last year's winner present, not to mention the copious doping stories that seem so prevalent .

Scotland on Sunday
thinks Landis is going to get a softball interview with Letterman, and thinks the epilogue of Positively False presents a confused story about The Call:

He writes that he immediately decided Geoghegan had to be fired.

"The only thing I knew right away was that Will needed to go," the book states. "I went to his room and helped him pack his things."

This looks a little like revisionism. The evidence of the following day at the hearing seems to contradict the book. If Geoghegan had been cast out of the Landis inner-circle the night before, surely he would not have been welcome at the hearing. But he was there, sitting behind his man, very much a part of Team Floyd. There was no talk of him being fired: that came only after LeMond had testified.

So before we ever get to his version of events as regards his doping, we have inconsistencies in Landis's story.

The Science of Sport thinks that the deeper you dig into the history of doping and the Tour de France the uglier it gets, and there seems no end in sight to the controversies surrounding it. Part 2 of Science of Sport today provides a primer on the drugs most talked about in connection with cycling this year.

Bicycling and Hiking Tour Blog finds a lot of what is leading up to this year's TdF is crapola, and feels that the world of Floyd Landis is a bizarre one. He will not buy Floyd's book "Positively False".

The DMc report bought Positively False, and likes it. He thinks it's a good idea to tell some lovable Floyd stories to get people to read about the case. He's a long time competitive cyclist, and anti-doping, believing in serious penalties and a fair process.


("Eightzero") said...

I don't think there is any inconsistency with The Call. The last thing you'd want to do is try to get Will out of the room, and make it look like there's a coverup. If he's going, have him there at the hearing, and when it comes up (it surely will) have counsel explain, tell the truth, and clarify the changing status.

raamman said...

ok, then why did floyd put his head in his hands when GL brought it up during the hearing?

bi_anne2001 said...

Eightzero, you are SOOO biased. If there's rumour of doping (Floyd or other), you bring up the the LNDD rather than admit that the problem lies with the vast number s of cyclists who cheat. Plain and simple. Now you're trying to suggest Floyd and his team wanted Willexposed in the courtroom, what a complete load of tosh. If Floyd had have wanted him sacked there and then as he says Will wopuld nort have been sitting in that courtroom that day, it was a PR disaster. Floyd and his team hoped that it wouldnt come up and that his good mate could continue on his team. That, along with Floyds web comments (next you'll be telling me you belive Floyd when he says it wasnt related to the abuse!!) is the real character of Floyd Landis that was exposed.

Michael said...

Who cares about 'the call' doesn't have anything to do with Floyd's case. How come no one is asky why Floyd's lawyer's couldn't cross LeMond? Why did LeMond hav a lawyer telling him what to say/answer?

The USADA and WADA is getting everything they want from the call - which is less and less focus on the science.

raamman said...

the call and the continually developing versions of what happened really illustrates floyds regard for truth- just like all the stories after he tested positive and perhaps his regard for sportsmanship and personal integrity. that more floyd speaks, the less I believe.

("Eightzero") said...

PR disaster. Yup. Clean up the mess time? For sure. I also think there's lots of "fog of war" going about, lots of hearsay and inaccuracies to go around.

Me? Biased? Yepper. I'm guilty of that for sure.