Its official -- Landis Guilty??

Floyd was obviously framed. Doping in cycling is virtually unheard of ... especially amongst Phonak and former USPS riders.

On the other hand, a massive conspiracy to frame Americans organized by a super secret cabal inside the UCI is really quite plausible.

henpen9699 said:

If he did dope, he, surely would have a good reason for it.

henpen... baby... you don't need a reason to dope. But it does make you feel like a winner.

If it's official, why the Landis Guilty?? in the title afterwards...

lol

[font=Verdana]Funny enough Floyd's doctor ran an daily online blog during the Tour.. this is what he said after the stage 16 capitulation... [/font]

"Long story short, he didn't feel good from the get go. Yesterday was a big effort and no matter what you do, sometimes a big effort means the next day isn't going to be so pretty. There's no amount of eating, sleep, magic potion mixing, or aromatherapy that is going to fix that in under 18 hours, especially after 2 weeks of racing. Floyd didn't bonk, he wasn't dehydrated, and his hip didn't feel bad. It just wasn't there for him. He felt awful and spent most of the day in damage control."

[font=Verdana]What the ? This directly contradicts statements made after the positive test... something smells here... [/font]

((bicycling.com0,6802,s1 7 123 14942 1 0 0 0 1542,00.htmlOpen ↗) -

henpen9699 said:

In their rest day report on the Vuelta, Reutters reports

"Valverde's team mate Oscar Pereiro of Spain, due to be declared the winner of the Tour de France following American Floyd Landis's positive test for the banned drug testosterone, confirmed in the same news conference that he wants to ride the world championships road race in Salzburg on Sept. 24.

"I'm in the provisional list and I want to take part although obviously I'll have to see how I get through the Tour of Spain first," Pereiro said.

Pereiro would be the first rider to win the Tour and take part in the world championships in the same year since Spaniard Miguel Indurain in 1995."

I guess that the rest of the world has already declaired Landis guilty.

tcklyde said:

On the other hand, a massive conspiracy to frame Americans organized by a super secret cabal inside the UCI is really quite plausible.

Finally someone making sense in their postings on this forum. Floyd would never have doped, because he was desperately looking for excuses after he got caught. Obviously nasty Frenchies in UCI... :p

Powerful Pete said:

Finally someone making sense in their postings on this forum. Floyd would never have doped, because he was desperately looking for excuses after he got caught. Obviously nasty Frenchies in UCI... :p

Furthermore, this person seems to give a lot of credit to criminals. Come on, like the cops have never heard a bunch of ridiculous excuses when they catch someone? "I don't know HOW that credit card got in my wallet!" Or as most teenagers say, "I don't know WHOSE pot/alcohol/condom that is!"

henpen9699 said:

snip

Have you ever heard of a person called Tyler Hamilton?
He was also framed. You should take up his cause and donate all your money to his legal defence fund.

nns1400 said:

Furthermore, this person seems to give a lot of credit to criminals. Come on, like the cops have never heard a bunch of ridiculous excuses when they catch someone? "I don't know HOW that credit card got in my wallet!" Or as most teenagers say, "I don't know WHOSE pot/alcohol/condom that is!"

Those are the dumb criminals. Good ones stick to their story.

As a scientist, how can I accept results that are not independently confirmed?

As a cycling fan, how can I hope that a man that lost 30 minutes and is flaming out in the Vuelta wins the TDF?

Frankly, I wanted to see some epic battles between Vino, Jan, and Ivan, but, instead, we were stuck with Floyd and everyone else passing off the responsibility to others.

The only good outcome of all of this would be for changes in testing proceedures that eliminates any hint of fraud. How many of you would be willing to bet everything that Landis is guilty?

patch70 said:

Have you ever heard of a person called Tyler Hamilton?
He was also framed. You should take up his cause and donate all your money to his legal defence fund.

LOL, Tyler tested positive two times for a substance that has been clearly shown to enhance performance.

Go back and watch your copy of the 2004 tour. It is obvious that he is mentally broken when he retires from that event. After watching that, I had no doubt in the test results.

Nah, I'd rather spend my money defending Ivan.

henpen9699 said:

How many of you would be willing to bet everything that Landis is guilty?

I would, and I am a big fan of Landis. I sincerely hope he gets off because I don't think he was doing anything that Sastre or Pereiro were not doing. I would rather see the UCI and the GTs concentrate on cleaning up the sport than killing scapegoats who make mistakes and get caught. The UCI should use IRMS testing on all urine samples.

henpen9699 said:

How many of you would be willing to bet everything that Landis is guilty?

I would. I also would make the same bet about Pereiro, Kloden, Basso, Ullrich, Armstrong, Heras, Menchov, Savoldelli etc.

henpen9699 said:

The only good outcome of all of this would be for changes in testing proceedures that eliminates any hint of fraud. How many of you would be willing to bet everything that Landis is guilty?

What fraud?! Please provide some facts/evidence to suggest the lab that tested his urine is providing fraudulent results.

fscyclist said:

What fraud?! Please provide some facts/evidence to suggest the lab that tested his urine is providing fraudulent results.

Lance said so 😉 . On Larry King, so you know it's true.

fscyclist said:

What fraud?! Please provide some facts/evidence to suggest the lab that tested his urine is providing fraudulent results.

I am not implying that the lab is dishonest. Only that we cannot eliminate that argument. What we do know is that the lab has a history of violating certain standards regarding privacy.

However, without an admission of guilt from the rider or a person with other evidence, a positive chemical analysis test is all that we have to go on. Why not separate the A and B sample to eliminate the possibility for the rider to claim that the testing lab conspiracy defense.

Really, if I were a person who made a mistake on an A sample and the results of that mistake were so publicly reported, I would be highly motivated to be certain that subsequent tests supported my earlier findings.

Separating the A and B tests and honoring the privacy of the rider until all tests are completed eliminates the above scenario possibility.

Bro Deal said:

I would, and I am a big fan of Landis. I sincerely hope he gets off because I don't think he was doing anything that Sastre or Pereiro were not doing. I would rather see the UCI and the GTs concentrate on cleaning up the sport than killing scapegoats who make mistakes and get caught. The UCI should use IRMS testing on all urine samples.

Finally, someone who sounds like he/she is a racing fan.

Truly, I was not such a big fan of Landis before the tour. I am a HUGE fan of racing and absolutly loved the last week of the tour. The fact that UCI did not follow proceedure (they leaked Landis's results even if they did not give the specific name) and that ALL testing is not conducted using scientific sound methods (i.e. double blind and independent cooboration) hurts racing.

Just read the posts about the Vuelta. Astana's four consecutive wins is something to really get excited about. Maybe an entire team is riding with the same exciting aggression as their leader. I bet Vino would not have let Oscar gain 30 minutes on one stage or let Floyd back into the race. Instead, I read posts wondering what drugs he is taking.

Likewise, if Landis did dope, then that ruins that last week of the tour. Really, other than McEwen's ride, give me one other rider who rode an exciting or high quality race?

henpen9699 said:

I am not implying that the lab is dishonest. Only that we cannot eliminate that argument. What we do know is that the lab has a history of violating certain standards regarding privacy.

However, without an admission of guilt from the rider or a person with other evidence, a positive chemical analysis test is all that we have to go on. Why not separate the A and B sample to eliminate the possibility for the rider to claim that the testing lab conspiracy defense.

Really, if I were a person who made a mistake on an A sample and the results of that mistake were so publicly reported, I would be highly motivated to be certain that subsequent tests supported my earlier findings.

Separating the A and B tests and honoring the privacy of the rider until all tests are completed eliminates the above scenario possibility.

Again, please give specific examples of the lab's "history of violating certain standards regarding privacy." The only case I know of that is even questionable is the LA EPO case. In that case, the samples were properly de-indentified so I don't see how the lab committed a privacy violation by revealing properly de-indentified research information to a reporter.

In your opening sentence you state that you are not implying the lab is dishonest, then two sentences later you clearly state the lab violates privacy standards. Two paragraphs later you present a scenario where a lab would create fraudulent results to cover up a previous error. It seems to me you are suggesting the lab is dishonest and violates standards otherwise you would not discuss these points in such a manner.

Separating the A and B samples will not eliminate all doubt. People will always find a way to believe their idols.

fscyclist said:

Again, please give specific examples of the lab's "history of violating certain standards regarding privacy." The only case I know of that is even questionable is the LA EPO case. In that case, the samples were properly de-indentified so I don't see how the lab committed a privacy violation by revealing properly de-indentified research information to a reporter.

In your opening sentence you state that you are not implying the lab is dishonest, then two sentences later you clearly state the lab violates privacy standards. Two paragraphs later you present a scenario where a lab would create fraudulent results to cover up a previous error. It seems to me you are suggesting the lab is dishonest and violates standards otherwise you would not discuss these points in such a manner.

Separating the A and B samples will not eliminate all doubt. People will always find a way to believe their idols.

But seperating the A & B samples would go a long way toward eliminating the lab as a source of doubt if a second independent lab got the same result.

Given the impact on a rider's career and reputation, an independent lab should be involved in any confirmatory test.

meb said:

But seperating the A & B samples would go a long way toward eliminating the lab as a source of doubt if a second independent lab got the same result.

Given the impact on a rider's career and reputation, an independent lab should be involved in any confirmatory test.

Any scientific finding is not considered reliable until it has been confirmed by another source. Frankly, I am surprised that the WDA does not already mandate this.

fscyclist said:

Again, please give specific examples of the lab's "history of violating certain standards regarding privacy." .... It seems to me you are suggesting the lab is dishonest and violates standards otherwise you would not discuss these points in such a manner.

Regarding the lab in question and Landis: All I know is that the UCI released the results of "a TDF rider" it felt that the results would not be kept in confidence. In addition, in seeming responce to Landis's claim that the elevated ratio was due to natural reasons, the same lab released information regarding the origin of the Landis sample.

In my book, breaking confidence in these types of instances is unethical.

Really, if I had to choose, I would rather that Landis be guilty than to believe that some conspiricy existed to defame any American Champion. If Landis were guilty, then I can still be a fan of cycling. If some conspiracy existed, then the results of every race are in question.