Saturday, September 22, 2007

Saturday Roundup

News
Bicycling's Sitting In column is a great read. Bill Strickland is glad that the decision came in for Floyd, because now Floyd is free. Free of all of the humiliation, free of lawyers, well free unless he decides to appeal, and free to feel the joy of just riding a bike again. Bill is not sure if Floyd is innocent or guilty but he feels Floyd was and is a special kind of rider:

There’s an old photo up on the wall of South Mountain Cycles, the local bike shop here in Emmaus. A 19-year-old kid in a ridiculous, bulbous blue helmet, a blue-and-yellow GT jersey and full ballet tights is catching air during some autumn race at what was then called Doe Mountain, less than ten miles from where I’m sitting right now as I look up at the photo. You were beautiful back then, Floyd, innocent yet full of abandon, goofy but intense, and kind of gangly but able to rip the legs off just about anyone on any ride.
You were not just one of those cyclists who loved the sport; you were one of those cyclists who made the rest of us love the sport more.





The San Diego Union Tribune's Mark Zeigler writes that Floyd Landis may not make an appeal to the CAS over the arbitration decision that went against him.

The LA Times Michael Hiltzik spoke with Floyd Landis yesterday who lashed out at the arbitration process that condemned and convicted him. The fight Landis put up was the most sustained and public of any athlete fighting similar charges, but as Landis said his chances of a victory were zero:

"Right now I have a very dim view of humanity," Landis said, "even though I know in my heart that most people are trying to do the right thing. I just have to get away from all this for a while."



Even though Landis says he still owes hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawyers and expert witnesses, he left the door slightly open when it came to whether or not he would file an appeal:

I suppose it's doable if I want to spend a year of my life away from my family," he said. "I have to decide whether it's really going to make my life any better."
One reason to go through the exercise, he said, is to preserve the option of trying to get a U.S. court to review the case, on the assumption that a federal court would insist that he exhaust all his arbitration options before taking a look.


An AP video is included in the report.


The Edmonton Journal feels Floyd Landis is in full denial mode and writes about a female Canadian cyclist who finally admitted to the doping she had steadfastly denied.

The Toronto Star says it's time to forgive Tim Johnson his lies about Viet Nam, after all his scandal is not on par with one such as Floyd Landis'.

The CyclingNews
writes that the UCI has named Oscar Pereiro the winner of the 2006 Tour de France despite a possible appeal by Floyd Landis. In other Landis decision news CN notes that the arbitrators who decided the Landis case were all critical of the LNDD . Landis' defense team put up a convincing case that the lab's practices were questionable at best. Lab director Jacques de Ceaurriz took exception to the criticism feeling that the lab was too harshly treated:

"We took a lot of flak," he told AP. "It was a little exaggerated. Things could have been handled better, without attacking the laboratory.


They took a lot of flak? They don't know what flak is.

The VeloNews' Patrick O'Grady took the lazy way out and let a picture take his cheap shot at Floyd Landis for him.

The New Zealand Herald
says that even though the UCI declared Oscar Pereiro the 2006 Tour de France champion he will not be officially considered so until Floyd Landis decides on whether he will pursue an appeal.

Newsweek includes a Floyd Landis quote in its' "quotes in the news" section:

"I have to assess whether a system that is corrupt is worth subjecting myself to again."---Floyd Landis





Blogs
Rant writes that with Yom Kippur upon us it's a time of reflection and atonement for him, for us, and for Floyd Landis who is weighing an appeal to the decision he lost Thursday. Rant feels there's only one thing that really matters in all of this and that's what is best for Floyd, Amber, and Ryan.

Sports for Sports Fans thinks that it was one excuse after another for Floyd Landis and it's time to let the spotlight go, fess up, and move on.

Chris Lavender at MySpace says so long professional cycling.

Cycling Phun takes a poke or two at Floyd Landis with some "decision humor". I can't quite manage a laugh at this point.

Erik's Bicycle and Multisport Blog
reviews the latest doping news including the judgement aginst Floyd Landis.

Podium Cafe
makes the point that no one or nothing can bring the ASO and the UCI together more quickly than the chance to dis Floyd Landis. Chris also thinks that Oscar Pereiro may be the worst winner ever of the Tour de France, obviously he will not be heading up Oscar's fan club.

Bicycle Frenzy
features a guest columnist who wonders IF you can believe in Floyd Landis and "the system" at the same time. At this juncture in time probably not.

Thoughts from Apex mulls over the NPR report from Friday on the Landis decision, and then does some reasoning of his own. He thinks that yes there may have been exogenous testosterone found in the Landis sample tested by the LNDD, but how it got there is the real question. As far as he is concerned Floyd did not dope.

Run, Run, Run, Run, Run, Cycle, Cycle Too
is torn over the Landis decision and is himself a stickler for paperwork being in order. Still, he is not entirely sure what to think, but is nonethelss considering making a donation to the FFF.

21 comments:

PEM said...

Residents of Montreal and London, be on guard, I know of 2 crooked lawyers practicing in both cities. If given the opportunity, they make up the rules as they go. In their eyes, proving that a system is corrupt will not exonerate you from the system claiming you are guilty. It appears they can be bought. On the other hand, if you are guilty but have lots of money, get these guys to defend you. They are masters for that.

PEM said...

A question for commenters here:

If you were in Oscar Pereiro's shoes, but know what you know about Landis’ case, would you accept the Tour title considering the evidence that Landis presented? Could Pereiro turn it down, and if he did, what would be the repercussions to him and the Tour?

Just as how Landis knows in his heart, he won the tour, I wonder if Pereiro believes in his heart, he really came in second.

tbv@trustbut.com said...

If you were Peireo, with your own family to feed, and a contract with your team, would you turn it down?

He's in an impossible position, and nothing he says is going to ingratiate him to everyone. I can see why Landis fans are annoyed, but, frankly, that's an audience of diminishing influence. He's doing what Landis himself probably would have done before all this happened -- more or less believe and trust the system.

TBV

pfinjt said...

Floyd should announce that he's appealing and tell everyone how hard he's working on his appeal, while secretly doing nothing. Then USADA would have to prepare for an appeal and spend lots of money.

When it comes time for the hearing, Floyd just wouldn't show up. Let USADA know how it feels to be bled dry for nothing.

Too bad something like that wouldn't work.

Ken at Global View said...

I read the decision this morning. It looks like to me that Dr. Wolfgan Meier-Augustein was called either incompetent or a liar to come up with the decision that the IRMS data does find evidence of synthetic testosterone. I would like to hear his comments on this. I think this is the key to the appeal.

GMR said...

Ken at gv,

I am coming to a similar conclusion. The panel says there are two machines with retention times of 25, and 45 minutes so you can't use absolute numbers. OK so under WADA TD2003IDCR then relative retention times need to be within 1% difference. Dr. M-A calculates the difference on LNDD test as 7%. Sounds like an ISL right? But then the arbs (read Dr. Botre) say well because there are two machines you can't use relative retention times!?! I see nothing in the above document that says it applies only to one machine. I don't see a paragraph that says if you use two machines then these rules apply. I would think that either the relative retention times applies and therefore constitutes an ISL or the LNDD is not following TD2003IDCR and that implies an ISL in and of itself.

TBV, Ken, what do you think?

GMR

C-Fiddy said...

When I read through the decision, and the dissent, and then read comments of LeQuirk and McQuaid, I can't help but think that they truly believe a conviction of ANY kind, is better than justice. I mean with their admissions of flawed procedure, it seems okay to just keep testing and KEEP testing until some operator on some machine somewhere comes up with a result that they can file a case with. I feel sorry for any pro that has to answer to these guys.
Keep fighting,
Fiddy

apoch said...

If I was Oscar, I wouldn't say anything at all, knowing the only reason I was in second place to begin with is that Floyd let me make up 30 minutes on stage 12 to jump from 46th to 1st.

sportsjunkie said...

Is this the Landis family blog to defend Floyd?

You state that "TBV tries to be objective, making reference to all points of view", but you also say "TBV is personally biased towards Floyd."

That sounds about as "foolish" (I'm talking to you strbuk) as believing in Floyd's miraculous come-back in the Tour. Spikes in performance that defy logic normally have a logical explanation, and it seems that the UCI has explained the reason for Floyd's success - he's a CHEATER!

tbv@trustbut.com said...

GMR,you are spot on. Expect more on this point.

TBV

wschart said...

OK, I have a question: I thought, per WADA policy, both an A and a B positive were required to sanction an athlete. The panel says the one positive A sample must be thrown out, but says that is OK to hang Landis based on the positive B samples, none of which now have a proper S positve to go with them. Is my understanding of the rules wrong, or did the panel bilaterally revise the rules on their own.

strbuk said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pfinjt said...

Sportsjunkie:

Sigh...Floyd's ride on Stage 17 has been explained time and again. It was not a spike in performance and did not defy logic. Good Lord, but you really need to stay on top of the new information. The "Floyd's Stage 17 effort was superhuman" argument is so six months ago.

Michael said...

wschart,

The majority arbs used previous decisions that allowed only the IRMS testing to prove a positive. Of course, they only referenced cases that allowed them to find Landis guilty.

The obviously, conviently left out the Landaluze CAS finding because that wouldn't help them with a guilty verdict.

BustinBilly said...

Don't debate the retention times just look at the damn plots. They are printed @ UsadaAndLandis-FinalAward20-09-07[1].pdf pages 41, 42. They are exactly the same. No doubt.

I used to believe Floyd until I saw the evidence.

tbv@trustbut.com said...

BustinBilly,

Excellent, not we can have some useful discussion.

I'm sure you understand that only the F3 fractions are relevant; why the others were included is a mystery.

Your commend say the plots are "exactly the same"

In what ways do you think they are the same? Once you identify some of those we'll have something to talk about.

thanks!
TBV

tbv@trustbut.com said...

oops, "now we can have", instead of "not we can have."

Hint: things are not what they appear to be.

BustinBilly said...

The F3 is the 5-alpha-androstandiol-5beta-pregnandiol difference this whole shebang is about. The A sample F3 is @ pages 35, 36. The GC/MS and GC/C/IRMS plots are identical. The two metabolites above and the 5-beta-androstandiol are the 3 peaks in the middle of the GC/C/IRMS plot.

BustinBilly said...

I meant the 3 big peaks in the middle.

tbv@trustbut.com said...

Hi BustinBilly,

This is a fruitful discussion, and I'm giving it first class treatment with its own post here.

Let's continue there.

thanks,
-TBV

Cycling Phun said...

Hey, thanks for the mention. The poke comes from the fact that I was, er... am, burnt out on all of the doping talk. I have to question if there is anything we can even do at this point.