# A Profiler's Take on Whether Landis Did It...



## rickreyn (Jul 27, 2004)

Landis comes from a fundamentalist background. Everything comes the hard way to those people. You work for what you get. You don't work you don't eat. They just want to be left alone in silence to practice their faith. He "rebelled" against that upbringing, but only to spread his wings. Not out of spite. The early die was cast. He started in mountain biking, a gritty sport typically dominated by grinders and risk takers. You don't do well in that sport without a huge capacity for pain. He switches over. He rides for Lance. He pulls him on numerous hills. Apparently loyal during the race, but probably bucking to be his own man. Armstrong's heart is super human, but Landis' is not too far behind. He trains like there is no tomorrow. He falls. He continues to ride. He bears the pain. He is never on anybody's list of suspects. He's "clean." He's obviously a fighter, and eventually, even after hard luck, he comes out fighting. He has a bad, bad day, not unlike others. However, he's in the lead, and he loses it. What was his reaction? He has a beer. He hangs out with teammates and throws a few back. With the alcohol talking, perhaps, the plan is hatched. They will take them on on the first hill. A team effort. He does it, and the rest is history. The story doesn't talk about silently huddling with mysterious personal doctors and emerging with a plan to dope. Nope. He is hanging with his team. We read of a fighter pulling up his boot straps for another go. Does he shoot up? Nah, man. Why? Am I stupid? If I pull off what I am attempting to do, I'll be tested and lose everything. I'm going to show them who is the best. Of all the riders, Landis seems the most unlikely to do something to disgrace himself, his family and is Ma. Although he will never be fully exonerated in the court of public opinion, it's going to be a combination of cortisone, the thyroid medicine, the beer, the whiskey, and a biker's metabolism.


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

Good post here.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

Maybe his doctor mixed some steroids into his chamosis creame, so when he applied it , he applied the steroid too, and it got in through his skin...

Maybe his pasta was spiked with some roids? His drink?

He's not the first Phonak rider to have this problem. Sascha Unweider also tested positive earlier this year for the same thing.





rickreyn said:


> Landis comes from a fundamentalist background. Everything comes the hard way to those people. You work for what you get. You don't work you don't eat. They just want to be left alone in silence to practice their faith. He "rebelled" against that upbringing, but only to spread his wings. Not out of spite. The early die was cast. He started in mountain biking, a gritty sport typically dominated by grinders and risk takers. You don't do well in that sport without a huge capacity for pain. He switches over. He rides for Lance. He pulls him on numerous hills. Apparently loyal during the race, but probably bucking to be his own man. Armstrong's heart is super human, but Landis' is not too far behind. He trains like there is no tomorrow. He falls. He continues to ride. He bears the pain. He is never on anybody's list of suspects. He's "clean." He's obviously a fighter, and eventually, even after hard luck, he comes out fighting. He has a bad, bad day, not unlike others. However, he's in the lead, and he loses it. What was his reaction? He has a beer. He hangs out with teammates and throws a few back. With the alcohol talking, perhaps, the plan is hatched. They will take them on on the first hill. A team effort. He does it, and the rest is history. The story doesn't talk about silently huddling with mysterious personal doctors and emerging with a plan to dope. Nope. He is hanging with his team. We read of a fighter pulling up his boot straps for another go. Does he shoot up? Nah, man. Why? Am I stupid? If I pull off what I am attempting to do, I'll be tested and lose everything. I'm going to show them who is the best. Of all the riders, Landis seems the most unlikely to do something to disgrace himself, his family and is Ma. Although he will never be fully exonerated in the court of public opinion, it's going to be a combination of cortisone, the thyroid medicine, the beer, the whiskey, and a biker's metabolism.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Didn't we post almost the same thing about Hamilton? he seemed so nice, he cried and cried when Tugboat died and dedicated his wins to the memory of his dog. No way he could do it. He was warned by the UCI about abnormalities before the positive tests. He couldn't be stupid enough to think he'd get away with it. Now look at what Landis' defense team are saying; it's Hamilton's defense all over again-quotes below (extracted from Cyclinnews): 

1. The B sample will be positive.
"We're expecting that [counter-analysis] will return positive because he produced it," 

2. The test will include IRMS results indicating exogenous sources.
"We will have endocrine tests carried out to demonstrate that the substances found in his body are produced by himself in a natural form and that it has nothing to do with doping." 

Good luck if the IRMS results show exogenous substances.

3. They will resort to Hamitonesque strategies by attacking the test itself. The statement below is about as desperate as chimeric twins. The lab does not choose the test; the procedure is dictated by WADA:

"There is no laboratory in the world that still uses this testing method because of tremendous faults," Buxeda said. "Even though it has come back as a positive according to this testing method, we cannot absolutely say that this signifies a positive doping case." 

4. They will grasp at straws. Retrospective analysis of Landis' previous controls have not returned any abnormal T/E ratios, but they will still try to show this:

"First, Landis failed the anti-doping test because he has naturally occurring high testosterone and epitestosterone levels dating back to his childhood." 

5. They will question procedural isses having nothing to do with the integrity of the test itself:

"the lab violated protocol by suggesting that the positive is from exogenous testosterone, without formally notifying the UCI prior to release of that information"


----------



## EasyRider47 (Sep 18, 2005)

Removed


----------



## Shockee (Feb 12, 2004)

or .. you work your butt for for a decade or more. Sacrifice almost everything to pursue the dream of achieving glory and success in cycling - even suffering excommunication from your family and their religion (for a period). Beaten down year after year, suffering for LA's benefit. LA belittles your stature - you're a loser a servant, you don't eat right, you don't deserve to win ... a vendetta brews in your soul.

Then you find an opportunity to take a Tour, work your butt off to seal the deal and arrive within a couple days of the big win .. only to lose it all in a half hour of bonk. You drink a couple pints, get all cloudy in judgment.. 'I really blew it .. izz no fair .. arrr.' You pop off a fist full of scotches ... the wheels start turning ... 'burp .. where is that doctor mctestical, chum??' ... a hero is born

(BTW, you can point to his upbringing, but it is folly to overestimate the effect of early-childhood social influence while understimating the effect of genetic traits and current circumstances.)


----------



## rickreyn (Jul 27, 2004)

Shockee said:


> or .. you work your butt for for a decade or more. Sacrifice almost everything to pursue the dream of achieving glory and success in cycling - even suffering excommunication from your family and their religion (for a period). Beaten down year after year, suffering for LA's benefit. LA belittles your stature - you're a loser a servant, you don't eat right, you don't deserve to win ... a vendetta brews in your soul.
> 
> Then you find an opportunity to take a Tour, work your butt off to seal the deal and arrive within a couple days of the big win .. only to lose it all in a half hour of bonk. You drink a couple pints, get all cloudy in judgment.. 'I really blew it .. izz no fair .. arrr.' You pop off a fist full of scotches ... the wheels start turning ... 'burp .. where is that doctor mctestical, chum??' ... a hero is born
> 
> (BTW, you can point to his upbringing, but it is folly to overestimate the effect of early-childhood social influence while understimating the effect of genetic traits and current circumstances.)


I am sorry. Maybe I am naive. Maybe I've watched too many John Wayne movies. No make that Gary Cooper movies. There are no heroes anymore. Just guys who are smart enough to not get caught. They're all bad. Lance was smarter than them all.

I happen to think every true ATHLETE thinks he can come back from incredible odds on his own power and the strength of this training. But again, maybe they're all dope takers. It just seems to me of the all the guys out there, he doesn't seem to fit the bill.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

There's a simple explanation that would exonerate Floyd: wouldn't it be possible for Tyler's vanishing twin to have applied a testosterone patch on Floyd's chamois the night before stage 17?


----------



## Shockee (Feb 12, 2004)

rickreyn said:


> I am sorry. Maybe I am naive. Maybe I've watched too many John Wayne movies. No make that Gary Cooper movies. There are no heroes anymore. Just guys who are smart enough to not get caught. They're all bad. Lance was smarter than them all.
> 
> I happen to think every true ATHLETE thinks he can come back from incredible odds on his own power and the strength of this training. But again, maybe they're all dope takers. It just seems to me of the all the guys out there, he doesn't seem to fit the bill.


My point was that we really can't know Floyd - maybe his wife can, I dunno. To suggest that profiling is an inexact science is an understatement.

Yeah, I want to think the same thing as well. In fact I used to despise the comments my riding buddies made about pro doping back in the late 80s. I wanted to believe the sport was 'clean enough' to be interesting and glorious. Perhaps it is cleaner than the naysayers suggest, but I am just worn down enough to become a naysayer myself.

BTW - I see yet another massive steroid scandal (this time in 100m track running) just broke the headlines. sigh.


----------



## snapdragen (Jan 28, 2004)

Massive? A sprinter has failed what at first glance is the same test Floyd Landis failed. Or did I miss something bigger?


----------



## EasyRider47 (Sep 18, 2005)

Removed


----------



## snapdragen (Jan 28, 2004)

Massive would be an entire team, imho. One guy - no matter what his awards may be, is still just one guy.


----------



## MidPack (Jul 30, 2006)

*I hope he's innocent but...*

This can't help pro cycling no matter how it turns out. But unless you believe that none of the pros are doping, how could it be that non-dopers are able to beat dopers In other words, if there are dopers in the peloton (and I'd think there would be some) and the benefits of doping are significant --- how could a clean rider (FL in this case) prevail over doped riders in the peloton Would seem they would have to have extraordinary, superhuman physical ability to do so, no
Again, I don't want to believe any of them are guilty, but this is a sad situation.


----------



## snapdragen (Jan 28, 2004)

I've just barely started reading this forum, so forgive me if this has been asked before. Are the benefits of doping that significant? Or would it simply make a mediocre rider a touch better? I just wonder, if the talent isn't there, will any amount of PED help?


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

I bet for most of the athletes, they don't know if it will make the difference of winning or not. But it is a game theory thing where you suspect (or know) that your competitor is using, therefore you level the playing field by doing the same.

Everyone can stop at once, but how are all to know that all are stopped? It takes one unbeliever to start the whole cycle again.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

L'Equipe has been reporting that IRMS results from the A sample indicate an exogenous source. If this is true I wonder why this info hasn't been reported to the wider media as apposed to just leaking it to L'Equipe? Anyway, I'm getting closer and closer to thinking Landis' goose is cooked.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

Funny thing is that supposing both samples return positive for this "exogenous" testosterone, people will still say he is innocent. How much proof do homers need?


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

Einstruzende said:


> Funny thing is that supposing both samples return positive for this "exogenous" testosterone, people will still say he is innocent. How much proof do homers need?


You will have to ask the homers when the proof is there I imagine.

The L'Equipe thing, I went to their webpages, couldnt find the article. anyone have a handy link. I was also under the impression that sample "A" does not get that kind of test, It has to be authroized by the UCI etc. My understanding also is if they performed that test, again this lab broke proceedure (nothing to do with Landis guilty or not).


----------



## rash (Mar 3, 2005)

*i'm goin out on a limb here....*



rocco said:


> L'Equipe has been reporting that IRMS results from the A sample indicate an exogenous source. If this is true I wonder why this info hasn't been reported to the wider media as apposed to just leaking it to L'Equipe? Anyway, I'm getting closer and closer to thinking Landis' goose is cooked.



OK....either he did it or he did not (willfully cheat, that is). If he did not do it, he's being SCREWED and everything LA says is true about the lab, L'Equipe, etc. If he did do it, stand up and take it like a man...say you doped and got results. and say your not the only one. name names. end it here. purge every single doping rider, right now, in one fell swoop. that is the only way to bring a little grace to your exit from the sport. DONT PULL A HAMILTON. that's just tired and old at this point.

(btw i still am waiting for more facts to come out before rendering judgement)


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

Einstruzende said:


> Funny thing is that supposing both samples return positive for this "exogenous" testosterone, people will still say he is innocent. How much proof do homers need?



When the UCI makes an official statement to the general media that the B sample indicates an Adverse Analytical Finding, that the IRMS analysis (per the order of the UCI) on the B sample shows positive for exogenous testosterone, and they certify that LNDD followed the WADA guidlines in full. A leak by LNDD to L'Equipe alleging that an IRMS analysis on the A sample shows positive for exogenous testosterone doesn't cut it.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

B sample is tested at a different Lab correct?


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

desmo13 said:


> You will have to ask the homers when the proof is there I imagine.
> 
> The L'Equipe thing, I went to their webpages, couldnt find the article. anyone have a handy link. I was also under the impression that sample "A" does not get that kind of test, It has to be authroized by the UCI etc. My understanding also is if they performed that test, again this lab broke proceedure (nothing to do with Landis guilty or not).



I agree and under the guidlines the UCI should be making the announcement to the general media not LNDD leaking to L'Equipe. Though if the lab breaks the rules Landis may not be found to officially guilty under reasonable standards of due process regardless of whether Landis really doped or not. Amstrong probably doped as per the finding of LNDD's results from their experiment on the 1999 samples but he couldn't be found guilty because the whole exercise violated the guidelines/due process.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

desmo13 said:


> B sample is tested at a different Lab correct?



As far as I know it's the same lab.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

from WADA technical document on T/E procedures:

"It is recommended that a urine Sample in which any one of the following criteria is met during the Screening Procedure, be routinely submitted to the IRMS analysis:"

The IRMS analysis can only help a rider who is innocent of doping but may have naturally high testosterone levels since an inconclusive IRMS analysis would be followed by longitudinal or prior history for natural fluctuations.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

Wada/UCI etc.. discredit themselves, or at least keep the controversy alive by using the same lab. It gives fuel to people who will insist the samples were tampered with.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> from WADA technical document on T/E procedures:
> 
> "It is recommended that a urine Sample in which any one of the following criteria is met during the Screening Procedure, be routinely submitted to the IRMS analysis:"
> 
> The IRMS analysis can only help a rider who is innocent of doping but may have naturally high testosterone levels since an inconclusive IRMS analysis would be followed by longitudinal or prior history for natural fluctuations.


It's best to read the whole thing:

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/GuidelineReportingManagementElevatedTERatios.pdf


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

rickreyn said:


> Landis comes from a fundamentalist background. Everything comes the hard way to those people. You work for what you get.



Didn't Ken Lay come from a fundamentalist background? Perhaps we should be careful with generalizations on both sides of the fence.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

rash said:


> OK....either he did it or he did not (willfully cheat, that is). If he did not do it, he's being SCREWED and everything LA says is true about the lab, L'Equipe, etc. If he did do it, stand up and take it like a man...say you doped and got results. and say your not the only one. name names. end it here. purge every single doping rider, right now, in one fell swoop. that is the only way to bring a little grace to your exit from the sport. DONT PULL A HAMILTON. that's just tired and old at this point.
> 
> (btw i still am waiting for more facts to come out before rendering judgement)



I 100% agree with you... of course.


----------



## Mdeth1313 (Nov 1, 2001)

desmo13 said:


> Wada/UCI etc.. discredit themselves, or at least keep the controversy alive by using the same lab. It gives fuel to people who will insist the samples were tampered with.



Funny, I've been saying this since this whole thing started. Why do they keep using the same lab w/ ties to all these organizations. It's the French version of the good 'ol boy network.

If they'd apply a little common sense you wouldn't have so many people questioning everything they do. 

Even worse, it only hinders them in any attempt to clean up the sport.

Between the mainstream sports in america and all of this, I'm beginning to think, hell, it's entertainment-- let them dope- and may the best/biggest dope win!


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

Well Einstein, if he were being setup, the only souce for the testosterone could be an exogenous one. One could surmise that the test was a fix.

So do you believe tyhe testosterone helped him win the stage and eventually the Tour? His other tests came up clean. So in theory, those that believe he doped, believe he gained some performance advantage from the testosterone, or why would he take it?


----------



## gebbyfish (Apr 26, 2002)

JohnHemlock said:


> Didn't Ken Lay come from a fundamentalist background? Perhaps we should be careful with generalizations on both sides of the fence.



I agree. In fact, I think the rejection of his upbringing, might indicate that here is someone who doesn't care what others think, even when it comes to cheating. I think that the majority of people, as adults, are of the same faith as their parents. Since he was strong-willed and strong-minded enough to reject his parent's faith, I certainly think that rejecting the notion that cheating is wrong would be easier than that decision.


----------



## OneGear (Aug 19, 2005)

gebbyfish said:


> I agree. In fact, I think the rejection of his upbringing, might indicate that here is someone who doesn't care what others think, even when it comes to cheating. I think that the majority of people, as adults, are of the same faith as their parents. Since he was strong-willed and strong-minded enough to reject his parent's faith, I certainly think that rejecting the notion that cheating is wrong would be easier than that decision.


precisely. he left his mennonite roots to do what he wanted to do. i am tired of reading about people assuming he's a perfect guy because of his upbringing. does anyone ever think about why he might of left? profiling is stupid. thats like saying all asian kids get As in school, and all Jews keep kosher, or all Muslims don't drink, or all Christians go to Church. 

I love floyd, but not because he's a mennonite and is down to earth and a fundamentalist, but because he's floyd and he works hard and has proven himself. judge on what you've seen, not what you ASSUME.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

I love floyd said:


> He did have some great races this year. if he is found positive of intentionaly doping for the ToF, shame to cast badlight on the rest of the season.


----------



## Mosovich (Feb 3, 2004)

*If he gets off on a technicality...*

then we'll never know and he'll always be tarnished. If he did it, he should unlike Hamilton, BE A MAN! He says he's a MAN and can take it like a man, so Floyd, please don't pull a Hamilton and be a pansy.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

I've found almost everything Floyd has said and done to be indicative of lying. His choice of words in many of his statements are typical of deception, he was clearly coached prior to Larry King to mask all facial expressions and keep his eyes focused dead ahead on the camera, and his 2 day delay before saying anything was typical of someone getting their story straight not the outrage of an innocent wronged.

Simoni was far more believable when he got kicked out of the Giro for cocaine. He and the team manager got into a very heated argument in the team bus as Simoni was refusing to leave the race.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

terzo rene said:


> I've found almost everything Floyd has said and done to be indicative of lying. His choice of words in many of his statements are typical of deception, he was clearly coached prior to Larry King to mask all facial expressions and keep his eyes focused dead ahead on the camera, and his 2 day delay before saying anything was typical of someone getting their story straight not the outrage of an innocent wronged.
> 
> Simoni was far more believable when he got kicked out of the Giro for cocaine. He and the team manager got into a very heated argument in the team bus as Simoni was refusing to leave the race.


examples please of choice of words being typical to deception


----------



## almccm (May 3, 2003)

So if he really didn't do anything. If there is exogenous testosterone in his sample but he really didn't use a patch or take a shot or whatever. What do you want him to say to make you feel better?

He has already said he can't explain why the sample turned out the way it did. I really haven't heard him put forth any excuses. However, he has clearly stated that he did not and does not dope. Now if he's not lying should he begin to lie so you can sleep at night?


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

almccm said:


> So if he really didn't do anything. If there is exogenous testosterone in his sample but he really didn't use a patch or take a shot or whatever. What do you want him to say to make you feel better?
> 
> He has already said he can't explain why the sample turned out the way it did. I really haven't heard him put forth any excuses. However, he has clearly stated that he did not and does not dope. Now if he's not lying should he begin to lie so you can sleep at night?


If the B sample comes back positive for exogeneous test then Floyd is either:

A: Lying
B: Got doped and didn't know about it
C; A victim of a conspiracy to make sure he doesn't win
D: The victim of unreliable testing

Which one seems the most probable? I'd say choice A.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*Here you go...Floyd said:*



desmo13 said:


> examples please of choice of words being typical to deception


"I'll say 'no'..." In response to being asked if he ever used PEDs. 

If I was asked if I've ever used PEDs, considering that I never have, my response would be a simple unequivocal, "NO!" Followed shortly with a lot of rightous indignation. 

He also made an interesting comment late in the Tour, or just after, when a reporter asked him how he felt regarding the exclusion of Basso, Ullrich, and etc... His response, after REPEATEDLY trying to skirt the question, was basically (I'm paraphrasing here as I don't feel like taking the time to look for the interview on cyclingnews.com) "Look, none of us are happy that those guys aren't here." Hummm, seems like if you were indeed a clean rider you'd not try and avoid the question and then finally answer in that manner. 

Look, I don't take any pleasure in Floyd getting busted. I supported Floyd and pulled for him to win. But it's looking more and more like the man doped. That being said I hope his B sample does come back negative. But I don't think that is very likely. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

You reminded me of his statement, "i'll say no...."

that one did catch me off guard.

(quote from velonews) ...One reporter asked Landis whether he had ever taken performance-enhancing drugs.

"I'll say no," Landis said. "The problem I have here again is that most of the public has an idea about cycling because of the way things have gone in the past. So I'll say no, knowing a lot of people are going to assume I'm guilty before I've had a chance to defend myself." 

With my rose colored glasses on, I will paraphrase Landis...

I will say "no", even though I know you won't believe me, so it doesnt matter what I say.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*I'll give him the benifit of the doubt too.*



desmo13 said:


> You reminded me of his statement, "i'll say no...."
> 
> that one did catch me off guard.
> 
> ...


But only for so long and so far. I, as much as anyone else, want Floyd to be innocent. But I can't ignore mounting evidence against him....


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

zero85ZEN said:


> "I'll say 'no'..." In response to being asked if he ever used PEDs.
> 
> If I was asked if I've ever used PEDs, considering that I never have, my response would be a simple unequivocal, "NO!" Followed shortly with a lot of rightous indignation.
> 
> ...


The other one that stuck in my mind was when he ended a sentence with "that's my position". Both put psychological distance between speaker and subject matter, like not wanting to take ownership of what's said, which is very common when lying. As is putting things in a way that allows for wiggle room later if somebody comes up with more information, which was reflected in nearly every answer he gave on Larry King.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

terzo rene said:


> The other one that stuck in my mind was when he ended a sentence with "that's my position". Both put psychological distance between speaker and subject matter, like not wanting to take ownership of what's said, which is very common when lying. As is putting things in a way that allows for wiggle room later if somebody comes up with more information, which was reflected in nearly every answer he gave on Larry King.


Exatly! I too hate to see and hear him saying such things in such a way...makes me start to really lose hope that he is innocent. I hope that IF he did dope that he will "do the right thing" in light of his upbringing and really spill the beans for the future good of the sport. The whole Tyler Hamilton schtick, "I'm innocent! My dead dog polluted my blood with the leftover DNA of my dissapearing twin!" is really disgusting and sad.


----------



## almccm (May 3, 2003)

I would agree with you if this was blood and the only way to get the illegal substance into his body was through a transfusion. You usually know when you get those. However, it seems that exogeneous testosterone can enter you body in a few different ways. In that case A and B are both probable. So it depends on how much you believe the person.

I don't believe Floyd covers up his failings or passes the blame onto others. If the B sample comes back and he still insists he didn't dope I'm inclined to believe him.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

almccm said:


> I don't believe Floyd covers up his failings or passes the blame onto others. If the B sample comes back and he still insists he didn't dope I'm inclined to believe him.


Yeah, what's the use of science when youl live in a world of conspiracy theories and superhumanly honest former mennonites.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

zero85ZEN said:


> Yeah, what's the use of science when youl live in a world of conspiracy theories and superhumanly honest former mennonites.


We could always wait to see if it is extrogeneuos before we decide if he is telling the truth. And yes, if then, Floyd says he was set-up, there will be people who believe him.
Believing in someone is not a bad human trait. It's also not like science has ever been wrong.


----------



## LyncStar (May 1, 2005)

rickreyn said:


> I am sorry. Maybe I am naive. .


Yes, you are.


----------



## rickreyn (Jul 27, 2004)

I know, I know...check out my about-face below...

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=68537


----------

