Saturday, July 14, 2007

Saturday Roundup

The Oregonian, registration may be required, publishes a piece by Bonnie DeSimone about Oscar Pereiro and his wait for the Landis arbitration decision. Pereiro is given little chance by many experts to win this year's Tour even though he finished second last year. That second place was seen as a gift from Phonak, Landis' former team, due to a tactical decision to preserve energy. Still, for for Pereiro (as well as Landis), the wait for an outcome from the hearings is a tough one:

If Landis loses his case, Pereiro would be designated the 2006 winner, said Patrice Clerc, president of Amaury Sports Organisation, the parent company of the Tour. But there wouldn't be any ceremony -- just a redistribution of prize money, Clerc said.

"The UCI can do what it wants," Clerc said. "For me, for us, Floyd Landis did not win the Tour."

Yet it seems highly unlikely after all this time and trouble that Pereiro could feel he did, either.


Rant writes about an anniversary, as he says, of sorts. Yesterday was the anniversary of the first time Floyd Landis pulled on the yellow jersey in the Tour de France, hard to believe it was a year ago. It was also alleged to be the day when the arbitration announcement in the Landis case was to have been made, not so.

A Feast on Wheel's Bonnie DeSimone read many guide "books" during her Tour de France adventures, one which has partially scrubbed Floyd Landis from its' annals, but the "rules" that got her through were not in print anywhere, and sometimes you just need to "eat a peach":

There are certain Tour rules that don't appear anywhere in print. Here are a few of them:

1) Eat whenever there is food available.
2) Buy gas whenever you see a station with no lines, as opposed to when you really need it.
3) Never leave the press room without grabbing several free bottles of water from the big tub.
4) If there's no parking space, improvise. has made a final casting call for "The Tour de France" and Floyd Landis has been mercifully recast.

Weemin69 is going to Brazil to sing, but took time the other night to go see Floyd Landis speak about his book "Positively False".

Armchair GM nominates the Tour de France, in part due to the Landis affair, for the biggest sports loser of the week. The Tour "loses" again as it did not "win".

Cycling Commentary notes that it's Bastille Day in France, and the last time the Tour came to Le Grand Bornand in 2004 we saw an epic Tour de France battle among Lance Armstrong, Andreas Kloden, Jan Ullrich, and Floyd Landis.

New Days of Being thinks that Floyd Landis has a less then impressive name, and it goes downhill from there.

Paper Warrior, on the RoadBikeReview forum, thinks Floyd Landis would be a natural as a lawyer. He heard him on NPR and thought that Floyd was an articulate anti dumb jock --
But his rationalizations are another story- of course burnt that bridge with Greg Lemond so nothing else better to do than trash him some more.

Admire LeMond
reports a L'Express interview with Greg, with his translation, giving his version of things:
E: Now you are in a conflict with another compatriot, Floyd Landis, winner of the Tour 2006...
GL: It felt like the story with Armstrong was happening all over again. I was really surprised because I thought that Floyd, by opposition to Lance, was a "good guy". When I learnt that he had been tested positive on the Tour 2006, I declared: "If he cheated, it's terrible. But in that case, he should say the truth and save this sport". A few days later, on August 6th, Floyd called me. We had a long conversation, very human, almost friendly. I told him that he could free himself from a so heavy secret and try to start back on new basis. To encourage him to break the wall of silence, I told him a very personal story: I was the victim of sexual abuse. I wanted to make him see that at certain points you need the courage to talk. We agreed that this conversation should stay between us. But after that, to defend himself against doping accusations, Floyd Landis made a lot of comments on a website. He wrote about me: "I'd rather ask Satan for advice than calling Greg LeMond". He also wrote really low things about me, things like: "If I told you what Greg confided to me...". He was insinuating that I was a bad person, that I admitted to him that I did something terrible... I was flabbergasted when I read that.

E: Since then, your relationship kept on deteriorating...
GL: Last May, I was called as a witness at the trial between the USA Anti-doping Agency and Landis. I wasn't sure that I wanted to go, but thinking back of how he tried to damage my reputation, I told myself: "I'm going". The day before the hearing, I got an anonymous call (LeMond found out the same evening that it was a call by Will Geoghan, Landis' manager and friend, and that Landis was with him when the call took place). The man was trying to intimidate me. He was refering to the sexual abuse I suffered. But Geoghan was making up a new story, talking about an uncle that would have molested me. Actually it was a friend of the family... (his voice is breaking). I instantlly thought that this affair was going to be thrown on the public place. It was sickening. I hung up. I called back the number that was written on my cellphone screen five minutes later. Landis' manager first pretended to not understand, to not know who Floyd was... It was crazy. The next day I explained in court what happened. I had the proof that Landis and people surrounding him were able to do anything. I got convinced he was guilty. He is a liar: I don't think he can be consider as a Tour de France winner.

So, no cooling of sentiments between the Landis and Lemond seems in evidence.

Into The Real World apologizes for being behind in her blogging, but she seems to have been doing a lot of good, and didn't feel well to boot. She took the time on her trip to Chicago, to have Floyd Landis sign a copy of his book for Shane and Floyd even put his arm around her.

Jody Takes Pictures
ran into Geoghegan at the grocery store, which prompted her to pick up Positively False, and likes it a lot.

110 percent thanks Floyd for making cycling synonymous with phrases like, 'blood doping'.

Second most useless blog
is irked there's no decision, and predicts a Levi win followed by a positive test result.

Finger Food
says not to expect an decision in the Landis case until AFTER the Tour de France has been completed, and that it will be 2-1 against Floyd.

UltraBob has Floyd Landis vs Lance Armstrong at the Leadville 100 later this summer.


("Eightzero") said...

I am still very unclear about what Clerc is trying to say. Again, maybe something is lost in translation, but the first quote seems to say "If Landis loses his case [then] Pereiro would be...the winner...." Is that an "only if?" (Nevermind what he means by "case." Does that include the pending case in the French civil court?) Then the next quote is unequivocal "Floyd...did not win..." Does this mean they do not care what the UCI or other governing bodies decide?

Imagine Floyd wins at both the USADA and CAS level, and UCI takes no action. And ASO gives the first place prize money to Pereiro?

nahual said...

"The UCI can do what it wants," Clerc said. "For me, for us, Floyd Landis did not win the Tour."

What an amateurish, inane comment. The equivelent of taking their football and going home.

But when you only own the game and can't get a home team winner what's left? Can't have dem standup Americans eatin' all our croissants!

Oh well, they can still force feed them ducks if not the rest of the world, pâté, patooey!

I protest! no more slugs for the rest of the year!! And I'll cut back on the Cabernet...un peu.....

wschart said...

I see that, as of today, Landaluze (sp?) is now 2nd in GC in the Tour. Now, as I understand, he never claimed he didn't dope (insofar as in his case) but simply that the 2 different techs standard wasn't followed. This is much more of a technicality, IMHO, than Landis' case that the lab test was so screwed up, no conclusion can be drawn from it.

In any case, wouldn't it be rather hypocritical for ASO to (assuming he is cleared) deny Landis the win, yet allow Landaluze to have whatever place he ultimately ends up in? Could UCI step in and tell ASO "Landis is cleared, give him the win". Would they?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Michael said...

This whole Landis thing is BS!! Espeically the LeMond thing.

WTF, LeMond...You DECIDED to testify against Landis because he said some bad things about you on the Internet - of all things?? Because he said bad things about you on a forum, you decided he was guilty and you would testify against him?

You decided to 'bribe' Landis to come clean by telling him a horrible story of sexual abuse. Why would you ever put Landis in that position? Did you consider the consequences? Maybe you did??

Did you read the whole post by Landis and take it out of context? You blasted Landis in the public media yet when he makes a statement basically telling you to knock it off, you decide he's a bad person because he didn't like you anymore???

I sure hope you read this - and I hope the arbs are reading this too so they have the guts to throw your testimony out, because as far as I'm concerned, it's now worthless. You have now joined Floyd in a race to the bottom. (Even though I think Floyd has been as up front as possible)

It's time for you to leave the cycling public and concentrate on building your bike business....


Ken ( said...

What LeMond is doing sickens me. He judged Floyd and started making accusations to damage Floyd's reputation in the press without the facts just to get a little publicity for himself. Then when a little bit of his own mud is flung back at him by way of Floyd's stupid remarks in a forum (as opposed to the mainstream press) AFTER he kept trash talking Floyd and claiming Floyd had confessed to him, LeMond cries fowl.

Now he is calling Floyd a liar to anyone who will listen. This is not a man of high moral character. By continuing to play the "victim" while trying to soil the reputation of others (e.g. Lance and Floyd), LeMond is only bringing down himself and making the sport look even worse. If he wants to go after Geoghan via the legal system, fine, that is his right and what Geoghan did was pretty awful. But, why doesn't he just shut up and get out of the public attention? Does he need the press to help sell an upcoming book or something?

How come LeMond needs to destroy the reputation of the only three American's to ever win the TDF? I first learned about the TDF because of LeMond and it sickens me to see him soil his legacy and own reputation in such a bitter and mean spirited way.

Between Lance, Floyd and Greg, I have come to believe that Floyd has the greatest credibility and has the best moral character. Lance is neither good nor bad on either account, he is just a great retired athlete who has gone on to other things and will probably be treated okay by history. LeMond's moral character, however, has come into serious question for me. He has come across to me as nothing more than a zealot who is willing to convict others with no physical evidence, only an unsubstantiated belief that everyone else is dirty.

I have a carefully stored poster and other memorablia of LeMond's TDF wins, just as I have a great photo of Lance and Hincape taken on the rest day after Hincape won a stage of Lance's TDF. I even have an autographed photo of Floyd. Greg's actions (even before the hearings) have really removed a lot of the joy I took in having carefully saved my memorablia from Greg's TDF wins.

Instead of having three great American cycling heroes to remember with great fondness, I find I am simply looking at a sordid triangle being dragged as low as possible by LeMond for reasons I do not understand.

bi_anne2001 said...

Ken, people may be sick of Greg, but let's remember in all this that Floyd's character is definetly in question and in private I'm not sure he's the squeaky clean person he portays in the press, as shown by his website post and his lies abour deciding to sack Greg immeadietly (and his lies about these lies when he couldnt get his story straight. Lemond may be dragging him down, but to me Floyd Landis seems a bit of a two faced liar, his public face and the REAL Landis that we catch glimpses of now and then.

Michael said...


Do you know Floyd? Do you know for a fact that he's not telling the truth? Why is Floyd's character in question (only because you've already made up your mind)?

How can you say that in private he's not as squeaky clean as in public? You CAN make that statement about EVERY person you know.

As for firing his business partner...Will was his best friend. He had to make a very difficult decisiioin and he did within 24 hours. Sometimes things in life happen and there's not always a quick and dirty solution. It's easy to give the politically correct answer, but NONE OF US where in Floyd's shoes at that time.

As for making disparing would be like someone making negative statemens about you based on your screen name. So be careful about what you are saying about others without facts to back your statements up.


Ken ( said...

Michael makes some very good points. Floyd may not be a saint, but bi_anne2001 you are making accusations of lies and a mixed up story about Geoghan without foundation. Most of the mixed up accounts about what happened with Geoghan's phone call come from mixed up press reports. I was very concerned about the details of what happened surrounding the phone call to LeMond. I have read the official testimony on this account as carefully as I could, I have listened Floyd's subsequent statements, and I have read quotes of Floyd's statements on the issue.

I believe that Floyd was sincerely upset by Geoghan's actions, not because it would harm his own case, but because he was so appalled by what had happened to LeMond as a child. While there was some confusion about the events, I found no serious deviations between the telling of the events over time.

From what I can tell Geoghan and Floyd were in a large banquet room at their hotel. Others in Floyd's party were coming and going from the room. Geoghan was at one end of a long table and Floyd was at the other. Floyd's attention was focused on whatever it was he was doing on his Blackberry. Floyd was not paying attention to Geoghan who was doing whatever he was doing including making phone calls, which he did all the time.

Now we all have been in the room with someone when they were on a phone call and we were doing something else. Because our attention was focused elsewhere we would not have any clue as to what the other person was talking about or with whom that person was talking to. This is especially true if the other person is always on the phone conducting some kind of business and thus we are in the habit of tuning that person out. Floyd saying he did not know at the time that Geoghan was talking to LeMond was completely reasonable. When Floyd did realize what had happened it was too late. The next morning Floyd told his lawyers what happened and Geoghan was fired. Again this is perfectly reasonable course of actions. Once Floyd realized what had happened, Floyd and Geoghan probably knew that Floyd would have to terminate Geoghan's employment, but rather than acting rashly he took a sensible approach of consulting council first. In the big picture it did not matter whether or not Geoghan was fired that night or the next day, and waiting until the next day to discuss the issue with council was probably very prudent as it would allow for calmer heads to prevail.

Some people are claiming that Geoghan's actions were a sign of Floyd's bad character; however, good people will do really stupid things when under extreme pressure. Floyd had no way of knowing what Geoghan would do and we all have friends who do questionable things from time to time. Geoghan had been a friend to Floyd for many, many years and when everyone else was abandoning Floyd over the allegations Geoghan stood by Floyd's side. This kind of friendship isn't something that can be cast aside for politically correct expediency. I would submit that Floyd not immediately turning his back on Geoghan after his betrayal is a sign of strong moral character, because Floyd was willing to take a "measured breath" and seek council from others instead of acting hastily.

The one piece of timing that seems to have been the most confusing to nail down in regards to Geoghan was when Floyd helped Geoghan pack up and move out of the hotel. To the best I can tell this happened that evening after LeMond testified. Again this shows good character in that Floyd was willing to be decent and help Geoghan pack in spite of the harm Geoghan did to Floyd's case. Being able to forgive those who harm you the most is not an easy thing to do, but it is what Floyd would have been taught to do in his strict upbringing.

None of us are prefect and all of us have a private side that ought to remain private. This does not mean we are two faced and it does not mean we are of bad character. It simply means that we are human.

To those who accuse Floyd of lying or being two faced; as Michael said, be careful about what you are saying about others without the facts to back up your statements. As the saying goes, those who are without sin cast the first stone.

cat2bike said...

Good Grief!! I'VE made BAD decisions in life; I'VE talked behind someone's back; I'VE even posted stuff on the internet when I was pissed, just to blow off steam!!! And I tune out what my co-worker says to me on a daily basis, as annoying as it is to her!! And I sit right next to her if I'm at my desk!

I agree with Ken about LeMond. My bike shop sells LeMonds and when I went looking for a bike, I was looking at Ralieghs BECAUSE of the way I feel about Greg! And I just started watching the Tour and following cycling in 2004. I knew who Greg LeMond was; everyone in America did!! Just like Lance.
btw, I bought a Serotta, but that beside the point....

And Ken, the way I understood Floyd's testimony, he went to Will's room after he went upstairs and helped him pack that night. When he talked to Amber, it was afterwards, and he went to bed. I'm sure he didn't sleep well..IMO

cat2bike said...

When Floyd went to Will's room, I think Will had just talked to Greg, a second time and come clean on who he was. Floyd said Will was totally freaked when he came to the door...I'm not sure where I remember hearing the whole story, because I don't think Floyd got that detailed in his testimony....but, I didn't make it up, I read it somewhere....on the internet.:)


bi_anne2001 said...

It's Billie Anne for anyone thinking anything else!!

Michael said...

Billie Anne. Thanks for the clarification. I think this example just goes to show that what we read can be taken out of context. Everyone following the Landis case is reading (and getting) their information via the media. What's written isn't always what's meant or the truth, for that matter.