Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Tuesday Roundup

In comments below, "ORG" says the HBO show was reasonably balanced, without much news to folks here. Landis does say if he loses, he'll retire and move on with his life, which he's said before (but I can't find the ref).

AP via VeloNews, LeMond wants harsher penalties, criminal action against dopers. WADA budget up 3%. LeMond also speaks to CyclingNews:

So what did he think about Floyd Landis? "He called me for advice," LeMond replied. "I told him not to act as Tyler Hamilton did: deny, deny, deny. He's a good guy. I will keep to myself and respect what he told me, while waiting for the verdict of USADA. This guy's talented, I've known him for five, six years. Of course I have an opinion on this affair. If it turns out that he's guilty, he will really symbolise the tragedy of cycling. This guy had ethics, a good education. If he's positive, then there's not much hope for the others..."

When this article was brought to Landis' attention at DPF, his response hints Greg may not be remembering something clearly:
Let me sum up my opinion on Lemonds' statements. I would ask Satan for advice before calling Lemond.

BikeBiz picks up Landis comments on DPF also discussed below, talks about other recent events.

VeloNews has an interesting interview with Pedro Delgado; one brief Landis mention, but speaks to many large topics not focused on doping for a change.

At DPF, Landis admits he's triggered by some questioning why everybody can't play nice in the case, and go along with "close enough" on the accuracy and statistics. Not meaning to give Ron, the questioner, too much grief personally, Landis says (spelling corrected):
(Insert disclaimer to avoid repeated civil war) Ron, I can't answer those questions because I've never been through anything even remotely like this before. However, I can point out that you are overlooking the height of the stakes in this game. The winner gets nothing and the loser loses everything. In that context do you think that overlooking any advantage and being nice will increase the odds of the other side playing fair? THIS IS A WAR my friend. Everything has been taken away from me, my lifelong dream, my job, the respect of my peers and the rest of the world for that matter, any chance of recovering some sort of normal life, and my father in law and best friend is DEAD. No problem, I'm a reasonable guy, I'll tell them that a few small mistakes which had little effect on my life can be overlooked and I'm sure that they will admit that the science cannot demonstrate with any kind of certainty that I used testosterone. That sounds likely.

Sorry Ron, that anger is actually aimed at people other than you, you just asked the right questions. The problem is that, even if I told you guys that WADA scientists now work for my team and can testify that it is not positive, you would still want to believe in what you've been told the "science" represents because that is all we have and you are afraid of being left feeling hopeless. I can solve most of the arguments which have gone on here lately by identifying the problem. Everyone here came with a preconceived notion of what was THE truth. And now both sides realize that things are not as simple as they have been advertised to be but you still have that notion when you get confused, so I propose a poll of statistics. What percent error would be reasonable to inflict upon someone the penalty which I have already paid. To be more clear, what is an acceptable margin of error for a test with such stakes?

That's the clearest expression of Landis's anger and bitterness I've ever seen. It's not an abstract game to him (or the ADA side). This is worth keeping in mind as things continue to develop.

New speculation here is that Landis may be saying he has WADA scientists (current? ex?) on his team and will testify that his test results are negative. He already had deBoer, his observer at the B sample. Are there more?

In a new topic, Duckstrap tips his hand and says his analysis of the current LDP does not lead to a guilty conclusion. He is particularly disturbed by some pages documenting key points that ought to be there, but have not been provided. There will be lively debate about this.

Floyd.com announces HBO at 10pm EST "Real Sports" appearance with Bryant Gumble.

Bujacob runs a thoughtful Robert Lipsyte piece we covered before; it's more readable at TomDispatch.

Ajiva relates bike doping to performance enhancement in general, returning to ethics.



Anonymous said...

Wow. A pretty dramatic post from Landis, especially coming as it did in the middle of a fairly academic and hypothetical discussion of truth-searching and making punishments fit the crime.


Unknown said...

I need to take issue with LeMond's comments about TH. Um, if you're innocent, what else can you do but "deny, deny, deny?".

Floyd's comments are cogent. He deserves better from the authorities. They all do.

Anonymous said...

Landis wasn't saying he has WADA on his team. He was using it as an example.. ie.. even if the sky fell..

LeMond.. he's is a little Pound'ish, eh? a wee too jump-the-gun emotional.

Cheryl from Maryland said...

You know, it is too easy to forget this isn't CSI and is someone's life and career. Floyd's post highlights why it is important for all of us to want the best practices in testing, reviewing results, everything, so we have confidence in the quality of any judgement before action is taken. I've said this before at this site, those of us who do not have to have regular drug testing for our jobs should BE VERY VERY GRATEFUL.

Anonymous said...

Umm, Floyd writes he would "ask Satan before calling Lemond for advice." Since I'd wager Floyd has NOT gone to the "Dark Side", it looks like somebody was just caught in a lie. Could it be SATAN?...

blackmingo said...

"what is an acceptable margin of error for a test with such stakes?"

Ahh, Floyd, there's the rub. Well put. I believe Landis finally articulates the core issue here -the core issue that is not discussed in the papers and elsewhere -probably because it isn't pretty and sure. Outside of sports, screening for cancer and somee other diseases is fraught with the same downsides, false positives and their sequellea of needless workups or treatments. Is it so hard to imagine happening here, where the evidence supporting the "diagnosis" of doping is based on relatively few studies and subjects?

Hopefully soon, a mainstream reporter with some heathly skepticism of the currently infallible WADA media image, will describe this morass where the meaning of his results resides.

Anonymous said...

ORG Here ...

Just watched Real Sports. Thought it was fairly balanced. Most a rehash of what has happened.

New news (to me) was Landis said if his appeal fails, he will retire from cycling and move on with his life.

Anonymous said...

I am so glad to hear Floyd express his anger, and pain over this issue. Everyone seems to forget the price he has already paid. In the interview on DP with Amber Landis, she said, he almost annouced his retirement on the podium, then changed his mind.

And regarding what Daniel said, my friend was diagnosed with breast cancer. "They" said surgery would take care of it. Then the surgery comes, and guess what?, they found cancer cells next to the chest wall and she had to do chemo and radiation. Science has some answers, but sometimes things just aren't as simple as they seem...somebody else, that I respect,just stated that....

I hate it when people accept things at face value, just because the the people "in charge" say so. That's how we ended up in Iraq.
Just my 2cents....

Anonymous said...

OTG Again ...

More on Lanidis' Real Sports interview. (Was too busy to post last night).

It was done in a time line format. They took the viewer through the events that occurred day by day. Along the way they have Landis talking about them.

They focused on his "excuses" in the immediate days aftewards, the press hounding his Mom, being the butt of Letterman and Leno jokes, etc.

They asked him about Witt and he became very emotional, almost came to tears. It made me very sorry for him at that point. It was hard to watch this part.

Gumbel also pressed him aout doping in the peleton. Asked him if he knew of, or ever considered, doping. He said no. Gumbel acted incredolous saying cycling is dirty and how can you be part of the peleton and not know or condsider doping. Landis said "wow, these questions are really hard" and said Gumbel is assuming that everyone cheats and only a few get caught.

Two outside interviews. One by a doping expert (did not catch his name) that said using T for what Landis has been accused of makes no sense. It's the wrong drug and would not help.

This was followed by Landis laying out his argument that the thresholds have not been defined, the sample was contanimated and political agendas might be at work.

This was followed by Pound saying, it doesn't matter if T doesn't help, it is illegal and he was found to have taken it. Pound was his ususal cock-sure self that this case is over and the hearing is a mere formailty. One thing was Pound did speak slowly to come off as reasonable and (in my opinion) purposely spoke with an American accent to avoid the appearance of sounding "French." Others might disagree here but that's how I saw it.

Gumbel concluded by saying no one has ever won on appeal against USADA and/or CAS and if Landis loses, he would retire and move on with his life.

In conclusion, it was a reasonably balanced interview. Its approach was to educate those that have not been paying attention on what has been happening. They offered no point of view to Landis' guilt or innocence.

Anonymous said...

in the Lemond vs Landis issue, why do you automatically assume that it is Lemond who's lying? It could just as easily be FL. Your bias is really showing. Once FL realized that LA was going to become his supporter, then all of a sudden it would become bad for FL to appear friendly with Lemond. So now FL denies any previous contact.

Anonymous said...

I remember that within a couple days after Floyd's A sample results were released to the media, LeMond was talking about how disappointed he was in Floyd. LeMond was at a cycling venue in Massachusetts(?), and was asked what he thought of the doping allegations about Floyd. I remember wondering how LeMond could be so sure about what was happening when everyone else was stunned and trying to figure out what was going on. Based on quotes of LeMond, it's hard to imagine why Floyd would have called him. I also remember that Lance was asked about Floyd within days after the story hit the media. Lance was in Iowa, didn't say much at first, said he didn't know much about the case. I never read a quote of Lance this summer that was negative about Floyd. Also, I don't think this site has ever made any pretense of being anything other than biased towards Floyd. There's a clear statement on the site that TBV supports Floyd. I've read comments on other blogs that imply that believing in Floyd is ignorant. As someone pointed out, it's possible to believe in Floyd, to like him, and to want to know the truth. Just because someone likes Floyd, doesn't mean he or she needs to give up wanting to know the truth. Since when is FL synonymous with truth? A lot of us support Floyd. Does that mean our lives are going to be destroyed if we find out he doped? Floyd is human. We're human. We can extend genuine good will towards him no matter what he did or didn't do.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous above: Did you miss the point that the intent of this site is to offer facts, and all sides of the issue? TBV, personally, states that he is pro Floyd. However, if you've read this blog on a regular basis, you've seen that he covers many points of view, and offered to give space to material opposing Floyd. Everyone is biased in some way. The most honest thing is to be upfront about one's bias.