Interview with Landis on BBC

"I find this very sad," McQuaid said. "These are outside issues. What Floyd has to deal with are the results of his tests."

karlotta said:

He's going to be putting the lab and WADA and UCI on trial is the nutshell. Last sentence:

"It's devastating, and now I'm angry and I'm disappointed in the system and I'm upset that some people with ethics like they have would be given the authority to do the things that they're doing, because clearly these people do not deserve to have the authority; they can't represent their own federation and their own jobs properly, and they'll lie and they'll do anything they can do to promote their own agenda, whatever that might be."

Pathetic. Listen to the whole jereboam of whine at (click on the 0752 segment):

bbc.co.uklistenagainOpen ↗

Good for McQuaid. Focus on the tests.

Call it whining if you will, but he DOES have a point. I mean he had to find out about the B sample results in the media? Come on, you've gotta admit that's [censored].

L

ANYONE who is responsible for the current state of affairs in professional cycling ought to lose their job. They all suck.

Pathetic, next he'll have press conferences with Tyler.

Lonnie Utah said:

Call it whining if you will, but he DOES have a point. I mean he had to find out about the B sample results in the media? Come on, you've gotta admit that's [censored].

L

Yes, he does. Even if you believe that Landis is the cheatingest cheater that ever cheated, don't you have to have some iota of disrespect for how the governing bodies deal with these cases? It's disgusting that the media learns of these situations before the parties involved, primarily the riders. Come on, hate on Landis all you want, but be objective about the current state of affairs in the UCI and WADA.

sydsyd said:

Yes, he does. Even if you believe that Landis is the cheatingest cheater that ever cheated, don't you have to have some iota of disrespect for how the governing bodies deal with these cases? It's disgusting that the media learns of these situations before the parties involved, primarily the riders. Come on, hate on Landis all you want, but be objective about the current state of affairs in the UCI and WADA.

This is what I don't get... I know the media got word of the failed A test before Landis did, but Landis's representatives were present for the tests on the B sample. So how can he claim he heard about those results from the media, too? Were his "representatives" asleep the whole time?

Lonnie Utah said:

Call it whining if you will, but he DOES have a point. I mean he had to find out about the B sample results in the media? Come on, you've gotta admit that's [censored].

L

Floyd still hasnt gotten the results of the B sample. Weird?

I think his new point that he has proof that the lab knows the match-up of the riders names and numbers will be interesting to follow. If this is true, as was the case with Armstrong, the lab should be shut down.

But the MOST interesting point was that Floyd's absolute testosterone level was normal or just sub-normal. His epitestosterone level ws nearly undetectable by the lab instrument. That will prove weird to sort out.

And we'll see what happens with the isotpe stuff that supposedly says its not his testosterone.

I doubt he'll get off and I dont actually know whether or what he has done.

But it is against the UCI and WADA protocol to release the A sample results and to break their own rules, and the justify it by saying the lab has such close connections to L'Equipe that we know they would have been leaked anyway.

If that is the case, how about using another lab?

bobke said:

I think his new point that he has proof that the lab knows the match-up of the riders names and numbers will be interesting to follow. If this is true, as was the case with Armstrong, the lab should be shut down.

I'm guessing that since they knew it was the "B" sample, then they knew, by deduction, it was his. To be truly scientific and objective, they should have run multiple samples in that block, 1 of which was Landis' "B" sample. They should not have known which one was his.

When you add the fact that the lab knew it was his sample, to that fact the T/E test is an "interpertive" test (from what I've heard, it must be "graded" by the lab tech), the issue remains cloudy. I am not saying he did or didn't do it, I just saying if Jonny Cocheran was still alive, he'd be sitting pretty.

L

I agree that his focus should be on the "guilty as charged" result from his sample. I highly suspect that he's throwing out issues to muddy the the waters somewhat. He needs to clear up the situation, not make it more vague.

That being said, he absolutely has a point. It's not the first time we've seen evidence of "leaks" from those organizations.

The problem is, they're distinctly two different issues:

1. He's guilty, synthetic testosterone was found in his sample. That much is very clear.

2. His "frustration" over the handling of the issue, while understandable and potentially very accurate, has nothing to do with #1.

Mansmind said:

The problem is, they're distinctly two different issues:

1. He's guilty, synthetic testosterone was found in his sample. That much is very clear.

2. His "frustration" over the handling of the issue, while understandable and potentially very accurate, has nothing to do with #1.

I disagree. I think if he and his lawyers are going to try to make a case for sample tampering, then his current line of attack makes perfect sense. I can see this arguements going something like this.

1). The lab knew the sample was his.
2). It's an "interpertive" test. If the lab knew the sample was his, this could intoduce bias into reading the sample result.
3). All other samples were clean (Normal levels and no synthetic testosterone).

So there are at least two possible explinations for the positive result from the stage 17 sample.

1). He could have cheated. If this was the case, shouldn't we have seen the same results in previous and following stage results?

2). The sample could have been spiked. This would explain why the other samples were clean and why the sample tested positive for synthetic testosterone, because it was added at the lab. Even if it wasn't I can imagine his lawyers ripping the lab to peices. They better hope they dotted all their i's and crossed all their t's, or it's going to be open season...

Again, I'm not saying he did or did not do it, just trying to think of the possible argument that will be presented to the C.A.S. Linking the two issues you discuss makes perfect sense from a legal defense point of view.

Lonnie Utah said:

I disagree. I think if he and his lawyers are going to try to make a case for sample tampering, then his current line of attack makes perfect sense. I can see this arguements going something like this.

1). The lab knew the sample was his.
2). It's an "interpertive" test. If the lab knew the sample was his, this could intoduce bias into reading the sample result.
3). All other samples were clean (Normal levels and no synthetic testosterone).

So there are at least two possible explinations for the positive result from the stage 17 sample.

1). He could have cheated. If this was the case, shouldn't we have seen the same results in previous and following stage results?

2). The sample could have been spiked. This would explain why the other samples were clean and why the sample tested positive for synthetic testosterone, because it was added at the lab. Even if it wasn't I can imagine his lawyers ripping the lab to peices. They better hope they dotted all their i's and crossed all their t's, or it's going to be open season...

Again, I'm not saying he did or did not do it, just trying to think of the possible argument that will be presented to the C.A.S. Linking the two issues you discuss makes perfect sense from a legal defense point of view.

You make some good points. However, if that is the line they're taking I would think his case would be better served to publicly state those exact points you made (no other sample has synthetic testosterone, etc.) as opposed to creating the "consipiracy" mentality right now.

Certainly, if he is able to introduce evidence concerning his other samples that suggest he's clear and/or suggest that something "strange" happened to the positive sample... that would open up a possible conspiracy issue. That would be the time to start screaming, when he actually has something in his hands to back it up. Then again, maybe he does already but it hasn't been released?

Mansmind said:

That would be the time to start screaming, when he actually has something in his hands to back it up.

I don't think they do. I think they are just trying to put doubt in the minds of the public regarding the validity of the sample, the lab and it's procedures. They don't have to be right, they just have to make folks THINK they are right.

With all this being said, if I'm the prosecutor for this, I simply bring up Achems Razor which states, "All things being equal, the most simple explanation is probably the correct explanation."

Which in my eyes, as much as I hate it, is, he cheated.

L

Lonnie Utah said:

With all this being said, if I'm the prosecutor for this, I simply bring up Achems Razor which states, "All things being equal, the most simple explanation is probably the correct explanation."

I was puzzled by your spelling of Achems, different from what I knew. Interestingly, there are even more spellings, of which the most common is Occam's. Others include Ockham's and Occham's. I had never seen Achem's until today, but it appears on the web also, albeit rarely.

JRMDC said:

I was puzzled by your spelling of Achems, different from what I knew. Interestingly, there are even more spellings, of which the most common is Occam's. Others include Ockham's and Occham's. I had never seen Achem's until today, but it appears on the web also, albeit rarely.

Yeah, I thought it was Occam's Razor? Of course, I'm not sure why I think that so I really don't know. :p

Lonnie Utah said:

I don't think they do. I think they are just trying to put doubt in the minds of the public regarding the validity of the sample, the lab and it's procedures. They don't have to be right, they just have to make folks THINK they are right.

With all this being said, if I'm the prosecutor for this, I simply bring up Achems Razor which states, "All things being equal, the most simple explanation is probably the correct explanation."

Which in my eyes, as much as I hate it, is, he cheated.

L

As far as public opinion goes you're absolutely correct. I don't think what the public thinks will get him out of this however.

What I'd really like to see is SOMETHING, blow the lid off the whole thing. I think there is guilt everywhere...plenty enough to spread around. It would hurt cycling at first, but what came out the other end would be a better sport, and better product.

Mansmind said:

You make some good points. However, if that is the line they're taking I would think his case would be better served to publicly state those exact points you made (no other sample has synthetic testosterone, etc.) as opposed to creating the "consipiracy" mentality right now.

Certainly, if he is able to introduce evidence concerning his other samples that suggest he's clear and/or suggest that something "strange" happened to the positive sample... that would open up a possible conspiracy issue. That would be the time to start screaming, when he actually has something in his hands to back it up. Then again, maybe he does already but it hasn't been released?

Can Landis even get access to his other samples? And, if one has synthetic testosterone in their system on one day, would it still be there 2 days later? It will be interesting to see what all comes of this.

JRMDC said:

I was puzzled by your spelling of Achems, different from what I knew. Interestingly, there are even more spellings, of which the most common is Occam's. Others include Ockham's and Occham's. I had never seen Achem's until today, but it appears on the web also, albeit rarely.

Spelling is not my strong suite. I'm most likely wrong.

L