Thursday, July 12, 2007

Thursday Roundup

At Amazon, Positively False is currently #523 book overall, #9 sports (Walsh at #19); #46 in all biography. At Barnes and Noble, it's currently the #823 book.


The CyclingNews says that Floyd Landis is still being offered $100,000 by American cycling enthusiast Michael Robertson. The catch? Landis will have to take a lie detector test to receive that money. The offer has apparently been on the table for almost a year.

The Guardian Unlimited publishes an opinion piece in which the author states he doesn't want to invest the emotion he may have in the past, and therefore in the post-Landis post-OP world of the Tour de France he doesn't care who wins.

The Telegraph UK
writes that though the Tour de France may have appeared to lose some of its Home support earlier this week, as the riders rolled through champagne country and the people were back to see their beloved race. In one town they passed through the names of past winner were displayed on a large board, all were there even Bijarne Riis who recently admitted doping to win the 1996 Tour. All were there, except Floyd Landis.

Eurosport notes that Matthias Kessler faces a two year suspension after his "B" sample tested positive for adverse testosterone/epitestosterone levels acquired prior to the Fleche Wallonne spring classic race. His ratio was stated at 85:1.

Greely Tribune column has a lot of snark directed towards Landis to explain his current Tour ennui:

Oh, there's still some debate as to whether Landis did in fact take doses of testostrone that would give a fleet of race horses a buzz, but tests say he did, and that sours it even if, in fact, he is found innocent during his appeal. No one expects that to happen, by the way.

Frank Deford explains why Landis doesn't get much sympathy:

"That shows that when you're loyal to a team -- you're a fan of a team -- you stay much more loyal to the sport," he said. "If Floyd Landis was on somebody's team, we'd be much more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt."

The RoadBike got an answer from Travis Tygart to a question about how and when the decision would be announced. No new information on the timing, but he says parties will be told at the same time, and USADA will put out a press release via their usual channels.

Godstruck has some fun with this year's favorite and not so favorite things about the Tour de France, but he wonders why when he does a 2007 TdF image search he gets Floyd Landis.

Better to Get a Flat Than to get Shot, a page dedicated to Greg LeMond, rakes over Landis' answers on NPR yesterday concerning the Will Geoghegan incident during May's USADA hearings.

No One But Me had to regrettably let a dear old friend go, and is also curious as to why it's so easy this year to find TdF coverage on YAHOO, it's never been there before. Could it be the Landis Effect?

Phantom Reflections wishes Floyd Landis could have been cleared to compete in this year's TdF, and gives us some truisms learned from watching the Tour for a few years.

The Stale Madeline, one of our favorite cookies BTW, thought that Floyd Landis was a religious fanatic, until she heard him yesterday on NPR. She now likes him.

Martin Dugard's TdF Blog
renders a positive opinion on one of Vino's "assets" and remembers a strategy used by Floyd Landis in the 2005 TdF.

bigbenaugust passed his blood and urine tests, so take that.

The Dave Daily has plenty to share about lots of subjects, and thinks that the silence about Floyd Landis and last year's Tour de France is deafening.

TdFBlog flaks Bonnie DeSimone's blog after reading about it here. But we aren't the "official" anything.

Rant offers a collection of shorties on decision timing, sportsmanship, 'roid rage, Kessler, and Schanzer.

Bike Hugger notes Seattle signing and appearance on afternoon talk show.

Two Newtons went "to Amazon" for the signing(does he mean Third Place Books?), and was impressed.


Gaurav said...

Good ..
Hey You can view my Blog its also Good

Bob Thomas said...

Has Floyd considered doing the lie detector test? $100,000 is a fair piece of change for asserting his innocence while wired to a few meters (if that is how they still do such tests). What would be the down side to doing such a test, assuming that it is fairly done by a qualified technician?

Cub said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cat2bike said...

I finally got the chance to listen to Floyd's NPR interview. Really well done!! Neil Cohen was fair and great as always; and Floyd sounded GREAT! He was well spoken and had enough time to answer the questions. It was great!! Of course, that would never be the case with CBS or mainstream radio....long live NPR!!!

strbuk said...

Amen cat2bike, you can almost always count on Neal Conan to be fair as well as humane. I felt it was a goad showing for Floyd too.


wschart said...

A polygraph, commonly referred to as a lie detector, measures a variety of physiological responses, such as pulse rate, respiration, etc. The presumption is that changes in these are related to anxiety, which in turn is presumed to be related to deception. However, there are people who have little anxiety about lying and others who may have anxiety about the situation (usually stressful) even if they are telling the true. Scientific studies indicate that polygraphs can do somewhat better than chance at determining deceptive answers, but are not perfect.

Now, put yourself in Floyd's shoes. If he takes that test and passes, he would get the $100k and maybe gain something in how the general public views him, but it will do absolutely nothing to advance his case with the arbs. I would presume that even had he submitted to a polygraph prior to or during the hearing, it would not have been admitted as evidence.

However, assume he is truly innocent (at least for the sake of argument). This still is a stressful situation, if he fails the test (false positive?), his stock with the general public goes to zero, and could provide the arbs with some cover for a guilty decision. Pretty highs stakes, which could increase the changes of a false determination of lying.

While $100k is nothing to sneeze at, in the overall scheme of things, Floyd has not much to gain and a lot to lose. Plus it would be another dancing monkey, distracting from the science of this. I think I'd turn down this offer myself.

Now, if the final decision, after all appeals have been made or the opportunity for appeals is gone, is guilty, I might be tempted to take a polygraph. Wouldn't really do much good, but could help out with "I was screwed" campaign.

Frank said...

No offense intended (re: "Not the official anything...") -- I thought you could use another text-bite for the "What they say about TBV" sidebar. :-)

Best, Frank from

Amy said...

I don't blame Floyd for not taking the polygraph. He's been jumping through hoops trying to deal with the WADA and UCI rules, trying to prove his innocence.

Who is this guy to demand a polygraph in exchange for his money? If you beleive in Floyd and want to help him, do so. If you aren't sure about him, don't demand that he take time out from his constant meetings with all the various facets of his defense team to jump through an extra hoop for you. Just keep your money and stop giving the press another tool to beat Floyd over the head with. He has enough to deal with, and the polygraph demand is just another distraction that doesn't help him win his case.