Re: Landis' defence

Simon Brooke said:

It seems to me that the cyclists whose reputations have been traduced have
a real complaint against the UCI, one which I would expect Landis, at
least, to turn into legal action.

Apart from his loss of earnings and the damage to his reputation so far
Landis faces the problem that his name being cleared, which now seems a
certainty, is likely to be perceived by the average person as some kind
of lucky escape. It therefore seems to me that legal action from him is
almost inevitable as the only way he can really establish his innocence
in the minds of the public.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

Simon Brooke said:

It seems to me that the cyclists whose reputations have been traduced have
a real complaint against the UCI, one which I would expect Landis, at
least, to turn into legal action.

Apart from his loss of earnings and the damage to his reputation so far
Landis faces the problem that his name being cleared, which now seems a
certainty, is likely to be perceived by the average person as some kind
of lucky escape. It therefore seems to me that legal action from him is
almost inevitable as the only way he can really establish his innocence
in the minds of the public.

Especially as if the USADA clear him then they will perhaps be seen as
weak or 'protecting one of the boys'.

What a mess.. The only people to come out of this with any credit are..

... answers on the back of a postage stamp please.

...d

dkahn400 said:

his name being cleared, which now seems a certainty

Hah!

--
E. Dronkert

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing,uk.rec.cycling
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: Landis' defence

Quoted message said:

Personally, I shall be bouncing up and down on the sofa on Saturday
afternoon, yelling 'Basso! Basso! Basso!' with the best of them.

Knock yourself out, but he's not starting. Riis seems reluctant to offer him
a platform now that they appear to be parting ways.

Alexander

In article <[email hidden]>
David Martin <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

What a mess.. The only people to come out of this with any credit are..

The podium girls?

Simon Brooke said:

I have a nasty suspicion that what this really boils down to is a turf-war
between the UCI/ProTour and the owners of the three big Grand Tours, at
the expense of the cyclists. The UCI was happy to pre-emptively leak and
talk up the evidence - as it turns out, wholly inconclusive - against the
winners and major stars of the Giro and the Tour de France and it seems to
me the motivation may have been to damage the pre-eminence of the Grand
Tours, and to increase the influence of the UCI.

At last something that makes sense!
Although having seen Landis close up on that day I am convinced he was
on a charge!

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>
David Martin <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

What a mess.. The only people to come out of this with any credit are..

The podium girls?

Probably more doped than the riders.

Ron

Dan Gregory said:

Simon Brooke said:

I have a nasty suspicion that what this really boils down to is a turf-war
between the UCI/ProTour and the owners of the three big Grand Tours, at
the expense of the cyclists. The UCI was happy to pre-emptively leak and
talk up the evidence - as it turns out, wholly inconclusive - against the
winners and major stars of the Giro and the Tour de France and it seems to
me the motivation may have been to damage the pre-eminence of the Grand
Tours, and to increase the influence of the UCI.

At last something that makes sense!
Although having seen Landis close up on that day I am convinced he was
on a charge!

Almost every bike race I have ever been a part of has had the final placings
decided by a gut check of some sort. It's probably more a factor among the
barely competent mountain bikers and cross racers that I ride among, but it
applies at every level. It ain't just dope. It ain't just guy's at the pro tour
level either.

But, when it is a rider of that class and caliber it is truly awesome to see.

Floyd won and deserved it.

Ron

Dan Gregory said:

Although having seen Landis close up on that day I am convinced he was
on a charge!

He was, but it's not now possible to know conclusively whether the
source of that charge was chemical or psychological. His ride that day
was either one of the great solo efforts of cycling history, somewhat
aided by confusion in the rival teams, or it was simple cheating.
Personally I'm now happy to give Landis the benefit of the doubt, but
thanks to the machinations of the French so-called laboratory we'll
never really know. If he was cheating there is certainly no meaningful
evidence of it as far as we now know.

In future I think A and B samples should be processed in separate
laboratories, preferably on separate continents.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

Dan Gregory wrote:

snip

Quoted message said:

In future I think A and B samples should be processed in separate
laboratories, preferably on separate continents.

--
Dave...

I have wondered why this isn't part of the protocol already.

tgh.

In article
<[email hidden]>
,
"David Martin" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

dkahn400 said:

Simon Brooke said:

It seems to me that the cyclists whose reputations have been traduced have
a real complaint against the UCI, one which I would expect Landis, at
least, to turn into legal action.

Apart from his loss of earnings and the damage to his reputation so far
Landis faces the problem that his name being cleared, which now seems a
certainty, is likely to be perceived by the average person as some kind
of lucky escape. It therefore seems to me that legal action from him is
almost inevitable as the only way he can really establish his innocence
in the minds of the public.

Especially as if the USADA clear him then they will perhaps be seen as
weak or 'protecting one of the boys'.

What a mess.. The only people to come out of this with any credit are..

.. answers on the back of a postage stamp please.

I.

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As I mentioned before, there is nothing keeping the athlete from keeping
part of his sample for his own use. It wouldn't be admissible as
evidence, but could be used by the athlete as a reference to be tested on
their own, should the A sample come back positive.

Curious as to how large a sample is required for testing. What happens
when an athlete can't produce enough? Or does it require so little that
it's not an issue?

Although ISTR it was only about 100-150 ml, in cases of dehydration at the
end of a long, hot race it could potentially be hours before you had enough
urine to produce a sample. Drug control provides water, juices, and sodas in
sealed containers for those who need additional fluids. I don't recall
having a situation where I wasn't able to provide the required amount on my
first attempt, but I would imagine that if you were only able to pee about
100 ml, you have to start from scratch on your next attempt due to chain of
custody issues on an unsealed container. They measure specific gravity of
the urine as well.

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:_oWXg.18086$vC3.17825@dukeread02...

Quoted message said:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As I mentioned before, there is nothing keeping the athlete from keeping
part of his sample for his own use. It wouldn't be admissible as
evidence, but could be used by the athlete as a reference to be tested
on their own, should the A sample come back positive.

Curious as to how large a sample is required for testing. What happens
when an athlete can't produce enough? Or does it require so little that
it's not an issue?

Although ISTR it was only about 100-150 ml, in cases of dehydration at the
end of a long, hot race it could potentially be hours before you had
enough urine to produce a sample. Drug control provides water, juices, and
sodas in sealed containers for those who need additional fluids. I don't
recall having a situation where I wasn't able to provide the required
amount on my first attempt, but I would imagine that if you were only able
to pee about 100 ml, you have to start from scratch on your next attempt
due to chain of custody issues on an unsealed container. They measure
specific gravity of the urine as well.

Chris Horner talks about this in one of his online diary entries. He had to
wait for fast Freddie who was called for a random. I think he said that
they waited at least 90 minutes.

Quoted message said:

Although ISTR it was only about 100-150 ml,

That amount is split into the two (A&B) samples

Carl Sundquist said:

Quoted message said:

Although ISTR it was only about 100-150 ml,

That amount is split into the two (A&B) samples

As shown in

http://ia331328.us.archive.org/3/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Doping_Case_Documents4/pdf2eng.pdf

The amount they had from Landis in the A sample was 65ml.
For riders X and Y, they had 95 and 85 ml.

-dB

Carl Sundquist wrote on 14/10/2006 01:43 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Although ISTR it was only about 100-150 ml

Ah, so not the three point eight water bottles full shown on Slide 14
then ;-)
http://ia331316.us.archive.org/2/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Case_Documents7/14_Landis_Baker_Slides.pdf

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci