I have been reviewing Floyd's statements and I am really confused about his beer/whiskey excuse. Originally he said that he had a beer, next it was a few beers and some shots of Jack Daniels. Early last week he was making the rounds of TV talk shows and one of his quotes was:
"On Monday Landis protested his innocence on TV in the United States, saying that his initial explanations for the positive test -- including drinking whisky the night before -- were the result of suggestions from other people."
Does this mean that he didn't drink any whiskey but lied about it at the suggestion of others, or that he did drink the whiskey but was sorry that he offered it as an excuse?
I have been reviewing Floyd's statements and I am really confused about his beer/whiskey excuse. Originally he said that he had a beer, next it was a few beers and some shots of Jack Daniels. Early last week he was making the rounds of TV talk shows and one of his quotes was:
"On Monday Landis protested his innocence on TV in the United States, saying that his initial explanations for the positive test -- including drinking whisky the night before -- were the result of suggestions from other people."
Does this mean that he didn't drink any whiskey but lied about it at the suggestion of others, or that he did drink the whiskey but was sorry that he offered it as an excuse?
I commented on the ever changing story from floyd before. I really think it means that he was told to say he drank some booze the night before but was not told a specific type or ammount, and that the variance indicated that he was making up his alibi as he went along. if police want to ask you about what you did the other night because they are investigating a crime and you are innocent, you are going to be very clear in where you were and what you did in order to prove your innocence; you will be specific and not vary on any specific points or details as floyd has done.
I have been reviewing Floyd's statements and I am really confused about his beer/whiskey excuse. Originally he said that he had a beer, next it was a few beers and some shots of Jack Daniels. Early last week he was making the rounds of TV talk shows and one of his quotes was:
"On Monday Landis protested his innocence on TV in the United States, saying that his initial explanations for the positive test -- including drinking whisky the night before -- were the result of suggestions from other people."
Does this mean that he didn't drink any whiskey but lied about it at the suggestion of others, or that he did drink the whiskey but was sorry that he offered it as an excuse?
I commented on the ever changing story from floyd before. I really think it means that he was told to say he drank some booze the night before but was not told a specific type or ammount, and that the variance indicated that he was making up his alibi as he went along. if police want to ask you about what you did the other night because they are investigating a crime and you are innocent, you are going to be very clear in where you were and what you did in order to prove your innocence; you will be specific and not vary on any specific points or details as floyd has done.
Does this mean that he didn't drink any whiskey but lied about it at the suggestion of others, or that he did drink the whiskey but was sorry that he offered it as an excuse?
That quote meant that he felt he should not have offered it as an excuse.
I have been reviewing Floyd's statements and I am really confused about his beer/whiskey excuse. Originally he said that he had a beer, next it was a few beers and some shots of Jack Daniels. Early last week he was making the rounds of TV talk shows and one of his quotes was:
"On Monday Landis protested his innocence on TV in the United States, saying that his initial explanations for the positive test -- including drinking whisky the night before -- were the result of suggestions from other people."
Does this mean that he didn't drink any whiskey but lied about it at the suggestion of others, or that he did drink the whiskey but was sorry that he offered it as an excuse?
A charitable interpretation is that he meant other people suggested that drinking whiskey (or whatever) could have caused the positive test.
I have been reviewing Floyd's statements and I am really confused about his beer/whiskey excuse. Originally he said that he had a beer, next it was a few beers and some shots of Jack Daniels. Early last week he was making the rounds of TV talk shows and one of his quotes was:
"On Monday Landis protested his innocence on TV in the United States, saying that his initial explanations for the positive test -- including drinking whisky the night before -- were the result of suggestions from other people."
Does this mean that he didn't drink any whiskey but lied about it at the suggestion of others, or that he did drink the whiskey but was sorry that he offered it as an excuse?
I commented on the ever changing story from floyd before. I really think it means that he was told to say he drank some booze the night before but was not told a specific type or ammount, and that the variance indicated that he was making up his alibi as he went along. if police want to ask you about what you did the other night because they are investigating a crime and you are innocent, you are going to be very clear in where you were and what you did in order to prove your innocence; you will be specific and not vary on any specific points or details as floyd has done.
If you really want to understand the variance consider: in the early evening after stage 16, Landis meet with reports on the steps and responded to a question with the having had a beer statement. After the interview, he went back to his room and had wiskey while being consoled.
The only conflict is with the way the press has reported it.
Hope this helps, but why is it that I doubt it really matters to you.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Frank Drackman said:
I have been reviewing Floyd's statements and I am really confused about his beer/whiskey excuse. Originally he said that he had a beer, next it was a few beers and some shots of Jack Daniels. Early last week he was making the rounds of TV talk shows and one of his quotes was:
"On Monday Landis protested his innocence on TV in the United States, saying that his initial explanations for the positive test -- including drinking whisky the night before -- were the result of suggestions from other people."
Does this mean that he didn't drink any whiskey but lied about it at the suggestion of others, or that he did drink the whiskey but was sorry that he offered it as an excuse?
I commented on the ever changing story from floyd before. I really think it means that he was told to say he drank some booze the night before but was not told a specific type or ammount, and that the variance indicated that he was making up his alibi as he went along. if police want to ask you about what you did the other night because they are investigating a crime and you are innocent, you are going to be very clear in where you were and what you did in order to prove your innocence; you will be specific and not vary on any specific points or details as floyd has done.
If you really want to understand the variance consider: in the early evening after stage 16, Landis meet with reports on the steps and responded to a question with the having had a beer statement. After the interview, he went back to his room and had wiskey while being consoled.
The only conflict is with the way the press has reported it.
Hope this helps, but why is it that I doubt it really matters to you.
It really matters to me. Do you have any links that I can read that outline the above?
If you really want to understand the variance consider: in the early evening after stage 16, Landis meet with reports on the steps and responded to a question with the having had a beer statement. After the interview, he went back to his room and had wiskey while being consoled.
The only conflict is with the way the press has reported it.
Hope this helps, but why is it that I doubt it really matters to you.
He said he was going to have a beer after stage 16:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Frank Drackman said:
I have been reviewing Floyd's statements and I am really confused about his beer/whiskey excuse. Originally he said that he had a beer, next it was a few beers and some shots of Jack Daniels. Early last week he was making the rounds of TV talk shows and one of his quotes was:
"On Monday Landis protested his innocence on TV in the United States, saying that his initial explanations for the positive test -- including drinking whisky the night before -- were the result of suggestions from other people."
Does this mean that he didn't drink any whiskey but lied about it at the suggestion of others, or that he did drink the whiskey but was sorry that he offered it as an excuse?
I commented on the ever changing story from floyd before. I really think it means that he was told to say he drank some booze the night before but was not told a specific type or ammount, and that the variance indicated that he was making up his alibi as he went along. if police want to ask you about what you did the other night because they are investigating a crime and you are innocent, you are going to be very clear in where you were and what you did in order to prove your innocence; you will be specific and not vary on any specific points or details as floyd has done.
If you really want to understand the variance consider: in the early evening after stage 16, Landis meet with reports on the steps and responded to a question with the having had a beer statement. After the interview, he went back to his room and had wiskey while being consoled.
The only conflict is with the way the press has reported it.
Hope this helps, but why is it that I doubt it really matters to you.
It really matters to me. Do you have any links that I can read that outline the above?
I have been reviewing Floyd's statements and I am really confused about his beer/whiskey excuse. Originally he said that he had a beer, next it was a few beers and some shots of Jack Daniels. Early last week he was making the rounds of TV talk shows and one of his quotes was:
"On Monday Landis protested his innocence on TV in the United States, saying that his initial explanations for the positive test -- including drinking whisky the night before -- were the result of suggestions from other people."
Does this mean that he didn't drink any whiskey but lied about it at the suggestion of others, or that he did drink the whiskey but was sorry that he offered it as an excuse?
A charitable interpretation is that he meant other people suggested that drinking whiskey (or whatever) could have caused the positive test.[/QUOTE]
During Landis's time EVERY team leader was doping and they were more or less on equal footing. It is important to note that the Trek team under Armstrong led the way to safer doping with the transfusion methods which probably saved the lives of a lot of peloton members. But rules are rules and taking a race away from a doper is only fair. Even if the race is then awarded to another who only tested negative at the time of the race because he was undetectable at that time.
Bicycle racers are not exceedingly bright as a rule and I wouldn't be concerned about anything that Floyd said. Not that he was stupid, but no one is going to fall for an excuse like that.
Conquer tough uphill climbs with the power of music! Introducing the ultimate cycling playlist on Spotify. Fuel your motivation, push your limits, and pedal to electrifying tunes that elevate your rides
