# Landis cooked...



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Reports out today indicate that the tests undertaken in the presence of Landis's and the USADA representatives revealed the presence of exogenous testosterone in the seven "B" samples. C'mon Landis, just fess'up and don't pull a Tyler on us. Even Virenque finally owned up in the end -- just think of the movie rights to your "insiders" story...


....



oh, how cynical I have become.....


Philippe

http://www.eurosport.co.uk/cycling/tour-de-france/2006/sport_sto1158919.shtml
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves2007/20070423_151813Dev.html


----------



## DriftlessDB (Jul 29, 2005)

Actually, FL's representatives were not allowed witness all the testing.

http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/

Guilty or innocent, at least the LNDD and USADA could be above board on the issues. This behavior just muddies the waters even more.

Dave


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

philippec said:


> Reports out today indicate that the tests undertaken in the presence of Landis's and the USADA representatives revealed the presence of exogenous testosterone in the seven "B" samples.


Remember this is only to assess the process used in his original failed samples. Not sure exactly what they are looking at to evaluate that.

If anything this hurts his PR campaign as much as anything.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

DriftlessDB said:


> Actually, FL's representatives were not allowed witness all the testing.
> 
> http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/
> 
> ...


Since when are you required/allowed to have a representative present for doping tests?

http://www.eurosport.com/cycling/sport_sto1158919.shtml

He's got another year, right, come back next years Vuelta? muhahahaaha


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

DriftlessDB said:


> Actually, FL's representatives were not allowed witness all the testing.
> 
> http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/
> 
> ...


I wonder what the story is behind the USADA exclusion of Scott?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

DriftlessDB said:


> Actually, FL's representatives were not allowed witness all the testing.


Everytime I read that stuff, I just end up thinking this is a complete smoke screen, slight of hand, diversion.

So they did observe 5 of the 7 tests right?

VN indicates that they were denied entrance on Sunday morning, but that all the testing was complete by then.

So did Floyd's representatives miss 2 tests but it had nothing to do with being denied access to the lab?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

philippec said:


> I wonder what the story is behind the USADA exclusion of Scott?


Velonews says they were denied access on Sunday morning, but L'equipe says the testing was complete on Saturday.


----------



## DriftlessDB (Jul 29, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Everytime I read that stuff, I just end up thinking this is a complete smoke screen, slight of hand, diversion.
> 
> So they did observe 5 of the 7 tests right?
> 
> ...


It was certainly a bit of PR work on FL's part with the blog entry. Putting the blog info with the velonews, it seems as if they were allowed partial access for some and none for others. Who knows, there seems to be more work done on both sides slinging mud than looking for actual results. It is truly a shame.

Dave


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Everytime I read that stuff, I just end up thinking this is a complete smoke screen, slight of hand, diversion.


Sleight of hand is right. By USADA and LNDD to distract us from the unfairness of their testing protocol. Look over here at these test numbers, but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain responsible for generating them. In this case, we haven't even seen the actual results, just a blanket statement of guilt. 

At least according to Landis, his representative was routinely denied access throughout the week. So while he was represented for part of those five tests, it seemed he wasn't for the entire test. Why would the USADA and the LNDD need to have private meetings excluding Landis's rep? What could they possibly needed to discuss that Landis couldn't hear?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/apr07/apr23news3
"The press release stated that, 'As such, the analysis of two samples was conducted without a Landis representative as witness. Such behavior constitutes a clear and direct infringement of Landis' rights while casting severe doubt on the integrity of an already dubious process.'

"The statement continued, "This latest incident comes on the heels of a week in which Landis' observers have been repeatedly and improperly restricted from accessing key phases of data processing and analysis while USADA's expert and lawyer were able to have free lab access and directed the retesting process of LNDD.

"According to the statement, the USADA observers were seen providing instructions to the LNDD staff and conferring with them in private during the sample processing."


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

DriftlessDB said:


> Who knows, there seems to be more work done on both sides slinging mud than looking for actual results. It is truly a shame.


I disagree. USADA has made almost no comments on the case, Landis' has had a full PR campaign in progress almost since day 1.

All the comments from ASO, UCI, Dick Pound, etc. are ultimately meaningless because they don't participate in the decision of whether or not his sample was a legitimate positive.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> ll the comments from ASO, UCI, Dick Pound, etc. are ultimately meaningless because they don't participate in the decision of whether or not his sample was a legitimate positive.


if you believ that I have some swampland to sell you.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

asgelle said:


> Sleight of hand is right. By USADA and LNDD to distract us from the unfairness of their testing protocol."


I know the French are out to get Landis because they could not accept a non-French (and worse, an American!) winner of the TDF ... but remind me why the USADA is out gunning for Landis? Aren't they on our side?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> if you believ that I have some swampland to sell you.


Well after reading the decisions in Hamilton's case I trust the process. If Landis' failure was not legit or there was a technicality (e.g. Landaluze's case) he will probably get off. OTOH, if he really did dope I suspect the report will nail him pretty conclusively.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

...................


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I trust the process.


That makes one of us.

Not saying I trust the riders/teams either but I have read about the process and seen it up close and there is little that makes me believe that the process or the people running it or designing the tests are consistant or fair.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> Not saying I trust the riders/teams either


Good, then it's a level playing field


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Is this another example of the unparalleled access L'Equipe has to the lab?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

harlond said:


> Is this another example of the unparalleled access L'Equipe has to the lab?


It would seem so.


----------



## FondriestFan (May 19, 2005)

There is a lot at stake here, not the least of which is the reputation of drug testing in cycling. I'd not only have given them access, but filmed the entire process and posted it on the web so there would be zero confusion as to the steps taken.

Otherwise, this smells like more bs. Not that I think Landis is 100% innocent, but I really think there's a lot of garbage going on here from the French.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*and not that I'm a total tin foil wearer*

but the credibility of the LAb, Wada, etc... are as much on trial now as FL. There's plenty for those folks to talk about. Anyhow because of this seemingly 'unprofessional' link between LNDD and L'Equipe wouldn't it just be better to get a new lab?
I don't see how if a defendent is accusing the credibility of a lab to have the lab retest itself doesn't seem proper.
Kinda like having the police investigate themselves on corruption/brutality charges


----------



## DriftlessDB (Jul 29, 2005)

harlond said:


> Is this another example of the unparalleled access L'Equipe has to the lab?


One would think that in a situation of this magnitude that this information could have been kept under wraps. Not only are you talking about FL's career, but the reputation of the LNDD is also under attack. That is why the B samples are being tested and they can't stop the leak. It allows the questions about impartiality to continue. It's really unbelievable, they can't seem to get out of their own way.

Dave


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

The credibility of the lab on confidentiality issues would seem now to be completely shot.

This sport really needs a strong riders' union.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

I forget his name, but the L'equipe reporter obviously has a "mole" in the LNDD, I'm pretty sure he's even said so (as if that is necessary).

I've never seen anything about the lab doing something to figure out who it is, could be the head honcho for all we know.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

atpjunkie said:


> but the credibility of the LAb, Wada, etc... are as much on trial now as FL. There's plenty for those folks to talk about. Anyhow because of this seemingly 'unprofessional' link between LNDD and L'Equipe wouldn't it just be better to get a new lab?
> I don't see how if a defendent is accusing the credibility of a lab to have the lab retest itself doesn't seem proper.
> Kinda like having the police investigate themselves on corruption/brutality charges


+1...


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

DriftlessDB said:


> One would think that in a situation of this magnitude that this information could have been kept under wraps. Not only are you talking about FL's career, but the reputation of the LNDD is also under attack. That is why the B samples are being tested and they can't stop the leak. It allows the questions about impartiality to continue. It's really unbelievable, they can't seem to get out of their own way.
> 
> Dave



+1....


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

harlond said:


> The credibility of the lab on confidentiality issues would seem now to be completely shot.



...and +1


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I forget his name, but the L'equipe reporter obviously has a "mole" in the LNDD, I'm pretty sure he's even said so (as if that is necessary).
> 
> I've never seen anything about the lab doing something to figure out who it is, could be the head honcho for all we know.


I think you mean damien ressiot, and landis is indeed cooked. ridiculous french conspiracy of enormous global proportion or not, he's gonna have a tough time explaining the new results.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

blackhat said:


> he's gonna have a tough time explaining the new results.


I only wish they would send these samples out to another lab for the carbon isotope testing. It would be great to hear the excuses, the accusations, the conspiracy, the spin would be endless and I'm sure, highly entertaining.


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*That is the bottom line alright.*



Dwayne Barry said:


> .....highly entertaining.


It is just a shame that the reputations and careers of young athletes are being destroyed in this ongoing Soap Opera.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

MB1 said:


> It is just a shame that the reputations and careers of young athletes are being destroyed in this ongoing Soap Opera.


along with the sport they purport to be defending.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

MB1 said:


> It is just a shame that the reputations and careers of young athletes are being destroyed in this ongoing Soap Opera.



wow. that's taking the doper as a victim mentality to a brave new place. even on the off chance they're wrong about the T, he would be the odd rider to have ridden for both phonak and postal and actually be "clean". I don't think he's a good poster child for your cause.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

blackhat said:


> wow. that's taking the doper as a victim mentality to a brave new place. even on the off chance they're wrong about the T, he would be the odd rider to have ridden for both phonak and postal and actually be "clean". I don't think he's a good poster child for your cause.


All that on a day he suspectly outperformed everyone else to begin with...

I think Floyd should stop spending the money he has left on lawyer bills, stop charging 30$ for his autographs, confess and take a vacation until he can get hired by Tinkoff. The more time and publicity his case has now that it's getting more and more obvious he did dope, the harder it will be to come back with his head up high. It looks more and more like he is pulling a Tyler on us.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*why is LNDD still involved?*

they should have been pink slipped with the Old LA 99 Tour leak.

if confidentiality is part of the job description and you have an obvious issue maintaining it
then you should not be employed


----------



## coinstar2k (Apr 17, 2007)

Seriously....why couldn't they get a different lab. Even if this whole thing is elaborate PR moves by Landis, USADA could have avoided the whole thing.

Brian
www.theroadbike.com


----------



## tricycletalent (Apr 2, 2005)

*St00pid fanboys!!*



blackhat said:


> wow. that's taking the doper as a victim mentality to a brave new place. even on the off chance they're wrong about the T, he would be the odd rider to have ridden for both phonak and postal and actually be "clean". I don't think he's a good poster child for your cause.


Oh wake up fellas. 

Why should Landis cough up anything? Will he be more popular if he admits he has been doping? Will he hold on to his TdF crown? There is simply no reason for confessing, other than gaining respect in a very small segment of the cycling community. 

Landis IS a victim, just like Ullrich. Victim of a game of russian roulette. This whole thing about cleaning up the sport is pointless. There will always be another gynecologist dishing out blood transfusions in large scale, or somebody who invents an unknown steroid not showing up on tests. In fact, I am playing with the idea to start such a business myself.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

coinstar2k said:


> Seriously....why couldn't they get a different lab.


Because the point was to evaluate the LNDD's procedures not find ex. T in Landis' other sample. When Landis played the "have UCLA do it, but their machine is broken" card, USADA clarified that even if it was working it wouldn't have given them the information they were after.


----------



## bigwil (Feb 6, 2004)

*What we do know*

1. Floyd Landis failed a drug test
2. Floyd Landis says he didn't, cites procedural errors
3. USADA, WADA, and the whole anti doping community could do a better job, especially following their own procedures.
4. Whoever is running the Floyd Landis "I didnt dope" crusade should be marketing some sort of product because they are good
5. Professional cyclist should band together and force a better system concerning the so called "independent testing"
6. Its not that hard to get a scoop at L' Equipe, just call your buddy in the lab
7. Floyd Landis still failed a drug test. 

As my dad use to say, if it smells like a turd, it's probably a turd. How does a professional cyclist at that level even get in the position of having a messed up ratio of testosterone? 

I think the professional cycling union should pull the stick out of their butt, and negotiate some sort of agreement to completely re-do the drug testing system. That way they have some say in the process, then when a rider pops hot on a test, you give them a big suspension like 5 years from all competition. Then you fine the heck out of the team, suspend the entire team from x amount of races, and require that all team directors that have a rider fail a drug test be fired, yes FIRED!. Why not make a manager responsible for their riders? I mean come on, obviously the punishment does not deter the crime at this time:mad2: . 

Just think only about 3 months until the next big drug scandal starts (the beginning of the tour)!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> they should have been pink slipped with the Old LA 99 Tour leak.


Why? The tests were carried out illegitimately and anonymously. The only identifiers were the random numbers on each test form. The rider associated with these numbers was only known by 2 people, the athlete and the UCI.

The tests were made public via the French version of the freedom of information act. LNDD is a French government facility. No names were included, just numbers and results. This info sat for for almost a year

Armstrong's number was not leaked by the UCI or LNDD it was released by the UCI under direction of Armstrong himself. Very simple, the French reporter asked Armstrong whether he had Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for anything that related to his cancer Therapy that could be performance enhancing. Armstrong said no and asked the UCI to give the reporter a copy of his form from the 99 tour....at the top of the form was Armstrongs number that could be compared to the EPO study. The only leak, if you can call it that, is that the UCI gave the reporter all of Lance's forms...not just one.

The reason no others were caught is that no other riders authorized the UCI to release the forms, only Lance.


----------



## Dwwc (Nov 24, 2004)

If that is the case why did they have to test Landis's B samples - why not some random samples without any names attached to them? And why publicize the fact they are testing Landis's samples if they want to seem impartial? Isn't testing "B" samples without a positive "A" sample violating their own protocols? 





Dwayne Barry said:


> Because the point was to evaluate the LNDD's procedures not find ex. T in Landis' other sample. When Landis played the "have UCLA do it, but their machine is broken" card, USADA clarified that even if it was working it wouldn't have given them the information they were after.


----------



## kmac (Feb 13, 2007)

I don't know whether Landis doped or not, and I'm not sure if I'll ever been convinced either way. The whole process seems messued up (among many other reasons) because: (1) The lab can't keep anything confidential. It seems like everytime there is a postive test, its leaked. (2) What does having an "A" sample and a "B" sample with different results say about the quality of the test itself? (3) Landis seems to be fighting the process, not the result, which often is the defense of the guilty.

The real loser in all of this is the sport of cycling itself. Its not good for the majority of the attention that the sport receives to be about doping. What I don't understand is why the UCI doesn't require more teams to adopt a policy similar to what Slipstream is doing. Test all the riders, all the time. Develop a profile of each rider. That way, when someone's result is out of whack, there is a baseline to compare it against. I understand its expensive, but what is all of this controversy costing the sport? Cycling needs to find a way to gain some credibility.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*What the crap?*

What the heck IS this?

Landis's samples are tested by the LNDD lab again, and AGAIN, L'Equipe announces the ostensibly confidential results before any official word comes out.

I don't know crap about this 3%, 4%, 1 marker, 4 marker, stuff, but this just does't seem like the way this should be done.

It feels like the way political candidates are smeared before an election, not a doping investigation...


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

kmac said:


> why the UCI doesn't require more teams to adopt a policy similar to what Slipstream is doing. Test all the riders, all the time. Develop a profile of each rider. That way, when someone's result is out of whack, there is a baseline to compare it against.


Just so you know -- Slipstream's/TIA-CREF's policy is based on the approach used by the FFC in France since the Festina debacle. Some people say this approach is why riders under this anti-doping regimen are notoriously non-competitive in major cycling events. Other national federations have been extremely recalcitrant to implement such strong controls but IMHO, it is the only way to go...

... it sucks however for those who are the first (and only) to put this sytem in place since they can be pretty sure to be outgunned at all the big races...

Philippe


----------



## kiwiiceberg (Aug 6, 2006)

LNDD would almost have a case for slander against Landis. The way he and his Lawyers make out the Lab has something to answer. It's almost as if he's trying to convince us that the Lab has put synthetic testosterone in his sample. Surely no one in the World would believe that? What a ludicrous assertion. Yet, Landis and his team of Lawyers continue to attack the Lab. The use of emotive language is high. The Lab is not in a position to use the Press...unless...they let get really p*%$d off about the accusations and let slip to a local the latest test results.


----------



## Jim Nazium (Feb 3, 2004)

kiwiiceberg said:


> ... It's almost as if he's trying to convince us that the Lab has put synthetic testosterone in his sample. Surely no one in the World would believe that?


Read through some of the other posts on this forum, there are lots of people who believe exactly that (I'm not one of them).


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

"If that is the case why did they have to test Landis's B samples - why not some random samples without any names attached to them?"

I don't know why they had to test Landis' sample.

"Isn't testing "B" samples without a positive "A" sample violating their own protocols?"

No because it won't establish a positive dope test. Also I'm pretty sure I've read that they didn't have to allow Landis' representatives to be there, as again, this was not a "B" sample testing to establish a positive dope test. Same as when they did the retro EPO tests from the '99 Tour. They don't need an athlete's permission to do whatever they want with the samples.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> "If that is the case why did they have to test Landis's B samples - why not some random samples without any names attached to them?"
> 
> I don't know why they had to test Landis' sample.
> 
> ...




...short answer: 

this testing was ostensibly performed to check the procedures & protocols used at LNDD....
there was an agreement between USADA & Landis that his representatives be permitted to observe all aspects of this testing....


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

kiwiicebergIt's almost as if he's trying to convince us that the Lab has put synthetic testosterone in his sample. Surely no one in the World would believe that? What a ludicrous assertion. Yet said:


> Not say that I think this happened, but at this point its not so hard to believe.
> 
> Think about it the lab is linked to the newspapaer which wants and loves doping scandle stories. Dispite the fact they have been told to clean up this leak time and again its still there. If someone is willing to take money to leak information then why not to alter the results. I mean their willing to break one rule over and over why not another. It does not even need to be the entire lab just one person with enough access which at the lab with rep for being run with a loose grip on the rules dosn't seem impossible at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> If someone is willing to take money to leak information then why not to alter the results.


Well, this is why the rider is able to have a representative there for the B sample testing, which I believe Landis did.

Also, I believe Landis would have to show that there was some sort of conspiracy and that accounted for the false positive. Just speculating about one won't do him any good (this would essentially allow anyone to get their positive dope test thrown out). If the "mole" was sufficient for this, no one would have had a positive dope test from the LNDD for the last several years.


----------



## culdeus (May 5, 2005)

Here's been my speculation all along:

Landis was way, way down in the GC going into the now infamous stage. He figures:

1) If he's gonna win he's gonna have to dope
2) Pray to baby jesus someone else wins the stage so I don't get tested
3) Go clean and get tested in yellow after the ITT when the stuff is out of the system

The guy had nothing to lose, he had a risky and unproven hip surgery coming up that could end his career just as fast as a failed test. The water bottle thing was always a masking agent that failed to serve him in the way he needed when he realized there was noone else to take the stage win. 

The lab handling was atrocious as always, but I have no reason to think they botched the testing or faked it. I mean wouldn't they have faked a LA test long ago if they had the chance? 

The guy doped, they all dope, he was just unlucky that he won the stage that day. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he's gonna have to get a day job now.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

culdeus said:


> Here's been my speculation all along.


Here's mine. He was on a typical sort of "recovery" hormone program that probably almost any protagonist in a GT is on. The probable fact that they're finding ex. T in other samples supports this. They'd probably find the exact same thing in almost any of the other rider's blood who finished in the top-10 because the T use is set not to trip the T/E ratio test not to avoid the carbon isotope test.

Either the drinking (if true) or all the water or the long hard ride or whatever led to a skewed T/E ratio and now he's screwed unless he really does have a techinicality that will cause both USADA and CAS to throw the case out.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

Come on!!! Did anyone think there wouldn't be any ex. T. in the samples? The original sample before it was seperated into A and B would have been spiked with the excessive amount "if" it had been tampered with. Besides any good doper would have known to not have overdone the use of T. in order to pass the tests. Maybe Landis was "inexperienced" in the "proper" use of the patch or Maybe it was tampered with. We will never know and Landis is done for.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

dagger said:


> The original sample before it was seperated into A and B would have been spiked with the excessive amount "if" it had been tampered with.


So you're saying Landis spiked his own sample? Because only Landis would have handled the sample at that point.

Also from what been reported there wasn't excessive T but low levels of the E that triggered the elevated T/E ratio positive.


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

It aint over til the fat lady sings... Go Floyd


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> So you're saying Landis spiked his own sample? Because only Landis would have handled the sample at that point.
> 
> Also from what been reported there wasn't excessive T but low levels of the E that triggered the elevated T/E ratio positive.


Perhaps someone at the LNDD initiated a molecular-level reverse filtration procedure in order to actually remove testosterone from the 2006 TDF samples and got lucky in that they were able to randomly select only Landis' vials among the anonymous samples. 

Or possibly, a race of advanced aliens from a nearby galaxy have elaborated a complex plot to take over the earth that, logically enough, starts with their leader masquarading as the frenchman heading the LNDD. Thus the missing testosterone can be easily explained by the use of advanced molecular level transport and regeneratiojn technology....it's common knowledge that space-faring aliens would do anything to keep an American from winning the TDF.

I mean, what other explanation could <i>possibly</i> make sense????


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

*busted,,,,,,,,,,.......................*

12345


----------

