# Floyd signs



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

I heard he is going to be on what used to be Healthnet. Anybody run into him at USPro?


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

He's going to be in Birmingham, Alabama, in a couple weeks:
http://www.pepperplacecriterium.com/


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

pretender said:


> He's going to be in Birmingham, Alabama, in a couple weeks:
> http://www.pepperplacecriterium.com/


I love how they advertise "Tour de France winner Floyd Landis"

I guess they didn't get the message that is officially not the winner ...


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pretender said:


> He's going to be in Birmingham, Alabama, in a couple weeks:
> http://www.pepperplacecriterium.com/


Smith and Nephew are sponsoring it, that is Floyd's personal sponsor for the last year or so. They make hips.


----------



## 1stmh (Apr 7, 2007)

I would be quite surprised if he didn't ride for Rock Racing next year.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

1stmh said:


> I would be quite surprised if he didn't ride for Rock Racing next year.


too many chiefs, not enough indians


----------



## medicalman (Aug 7, 2008)

yes they make hip and knee prosthesis and buy their doctors ....excuse me use them as consultants. I too am surprised that he has not signed with RR.


----------



## tete de la tour (Oct 26, 2006)

I believe he wants to race the tour again one day. with RR that will not give him real credibility as a reformed athlete from the french point of view. I believe one year in the domestic peleton will give him the race miles he needs. Then we will see him hop to the European scene.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

tete de la tour said:


> I believe he wants to race the tour again one day. with RR that will not give him real credibility as a reformed athlete from the french point of view. I believe one year in the domestic peleton will give him the race miles he needs. Then we will see him hop to the European scene.


If Smith and Nephew is the new team sponsor that could happen. They are big in Europe.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

???????????????????????????????????
What?
I don't care if Flandis is sponsored by the EU. There is no way ASO is ever going to let him into one of their races again. Ever. Will not happen, no matter how bad he wants it, and no matter what team signs him. In fact, I think any euro team that does sign him will be pretty much assured an exclussion for the entire team from every ASO race on the calendar. He is done in Europe. Tyler has a better shot of getting invited to the Tour.


----------



## tete de la tour (Oct 26, 2006)

I believe that there is enough questions to be asked that Floyd could return to the tour. In this current climate many people still believe his innocence Much of the publicized drama was between USADA and Floyd not the ASO directly. as a matter of fact floyd and the ASO made a deal early on that he would not participate ( by choice ) in any ASO till his trial was done.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> ???????????????????????????????????
> What?
> I don't care if Flandis is sponsored by the EU. There is no way ASO is ever going to let him into one of their races again. Ever. Will not happen, no matter how bad he wants it, and no matter what team signs him. In fact, I think any euro team that does sign him will be pretty much assured an exclussion for the entire team from every ASO race on the calendar. He is done in Europe. Tyler has a better shot of getting invited to the Tour.


I understand you point however the ASO is not the only Game in Europe. Astana was able to have a very productive season without them. 



tete de la tour said:


> I believe that there is enough questions to be asked that Floyd could return to the tour. In this current climate many people still believe his innocence Much of the publicized drama was between USADA and Floyd not the ASO directly. as a matter of fact floyd and the ASO made a deal early on that he would not participate ( by choice ) in any ASO till his trial was done.


Few fans in Europe, or the US for that matter, believe Floyd. It is hard to read the CAS decision and not think that he is guilty


----------



## justinb (Nov 20, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> ...
> 
> Few fans in Europe, or the US for that matter, believe Floyd.* It is hard to read the CAS decision and not think that he is guilty.*


I'm not saying I believe Landis is innocent, but the main thing I took from the CAS decision is that the anti-doping system needs serious overhaul. Most of the evidence presented was deeply flawed, from a scientific perspective, and it must be worrisome to know that is the standard by which one could lose a career.


----------



## tete de la tour (Oct 26, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> Few fans in Europe, or the US for that matter, believe Floyd. It is hard to read the CAS decision and not think that he is guilty


You are wrong. I work in theindustry and I can assure you that is not the case. as a matter of fact most people I talk to , including some pro's dont trust the french labs and many of them support floyd in this one. I have not been to europe so I cannot say how the feedback is there but most I talk to either can't say one way or the other and many simply say they believe him. 

perhaps its because he is often in our area training and people have met him personally.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

tete de la tour said:


> You are wrong. I work in theindustry and I can assure you that is not the case. as a matter of fact most people I talk to , including some pro's dont trust the french labs and many of them support floyd in this one. I have not been to europe so I cannot say how the feedback is there but most I talk to either can't say one way or the other and many simply say they believe him.
> 
> perhaps its because he is often in our area training and people have met him personally.


I respectfully disagree. I have been involved in cycling on all levels for 25 years and none of the people I associate with believe him. Yes, I too have met Floyd, and live in the same area. I still do not believe him. nether do any of the current pros, ex pros, DS's, or former teammates of his that I have spoken to. I go to Europe 4-5 times a year (Leaving for Worlds in 2 weeks) and none of my European friends believe him....even one of his best friends, who was going to ghost write his book, does not believe him. Yes, there is a small group of people that have bought into the Arnie/Suh smoke and mirrors but to most cycling fans he is a doper.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

justinb said:


> I'm not saying I believe Landis is innocent, but the main thing I took from the CAS decision is that the anti-doping system needs serious overhaul. Most of the evidence presented was deeply flawed, from a scientific perspective, and it must be worrisome to know that is the standard by which one could lose a career.


Do you mean the first arbitration or CAS? While there was some question of the handling of his first sample in the first Arb hearing there was little credence given to it in the CAS decision. I would not say that most of the evidence was flawed. The evidence that convicted him, the IRMS test, was solid.


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> It is hard to read the CAS decision and not think that he is guilty


Disclaimers:

- I do not know (or even have met) any of the parties involved in the case.
- I have a better than ave understanding of issues (technical & legal) related to medical testing (doctorate & experience as expert witness).
- I have no opinion on whether or not FL doped, only that the evidence used to convict was seriously flawed (sample handling, testing protocol violations, etc.). 
- I believe the current drug testing system is seriously flawed such that it is likely some dopers are undetected & some clean riders are falsely accused. 

I have read & re-read the official CAS decision, as well as the prior US AAA opinion. I still cannot believe these decisions. And the CAS's assessment of a fine for mounting a credible defense was shocking. 

Among the scientific community at least, I am not alone in questioning the poor scientific quality of the evidence in the FL case.

http://www.iafs2008.com/b_seminar1.asp


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

He had synthetic testosterone in his system. That's all that counts.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Oldteen said:


> Disclaimers:
> 
> - I do not know (or even have met) any of the parties involved in the case.
> - I have a better than ave understanding of issues (technical & legal) related to medical testing (doctorate & experience as expert witness).
> ...


The Floyd Fairness Fund raised over $2 million. With this Floyd was able to hire the best experts and the best lawyers money could buy. Twice he was allowed to present his case to a panel of professional arbitrators. After review all of the evidence, not just the fluff that Floyds team tried to feed the public, he lost. He lost twice. He defense was not credible, that is why he lost twice. 

It is normal for the loser in an arbitration case to be responsible for the costs, it could have been much more. If you read the CAS decision you will find that the primary reason he was assessed the fee was because the aggressively unethical behavior of his team.


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

Floyd who?


----------



## Unica (Sep 24, 2004)

There is no way in the world Landis will ever ride the Tour again, or as has been previously said, _any_ ASO races.

The man is a cheat. No one in Europe believes him - and I know this as I live here. The pro peleton (in fact, cycling as a whole) is better off without him.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> If you read the CAS decision you will find that the primary reason he was assessed the fee was because the aggressively unethical behavior of his team.


Absolutely untrue (but why let facts get in the way?). I challenge you or anyone else to find any reference to ethics in the justification for awarding fees.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Floyd will never, ever, ever, ever, ever race the Tour de France again. And no wishful thinking will ever change that.


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> The Floyd Fairness Fund raised over $2 million. With this Floyd was able to hire the best experts and the best lawyers money could buy. Twice he was allowed to present his case to a panel of professional arbitrators. After review all of the evidence, not just the fluff that Floyds team tried to feed the public, he lost. He lost twice. He defense was not credible, that is why he lost twice.
> 
> It is normal for the loser in an arbitration case to be responsible for the costs, it could have been much more. If you read the CAS decision you will find that the primary reason he was assessed the fee was because the aggressively unethical behavior of his team.


All that financial backing and the "best" experts (arguable) are useless against a predetermined verdict. No athlete FROM ANY SPORT has ever won a "doping" case at the US panel FL faced. Again, I simply and sharply disagree with the CAS. Can you imaging a US defense team, even in an arbitration case, being fined for creating a defense???? What was "unethical"? Pointing out that WADA's own testing procedures were violated, and that the logic behind some of those procedures was to prevent an incompetent/unethical technician from creating false positives? This has indeed occurred in other drug testing venues, so how is it unethical to suggest that MIGHT have happened here? 
In regards to the "finding" of synthetic testosterone, many forensic lab experts feel the evidence was fatally flawed. (see my prior link). From their perspective, this case is "bad science". 
IMHO bad science is why many in the peloton still believe they can get away with doping (and probably do- for a time at least).

I do not doubt that most Europeans believe FL is a cheat. He may well be. But many also believe that Armstrong never had cancer.

End result, however, is exactly as philippec said:
"Floyd will never, ever, ever, ever, ever race the Tour de France again."


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Oldteen said:


> No athlete FROM ANY SPORT has ever won a "doping" case at the US panel FL faced.


Also not true (LaTasha Jenkins) unless you mean the exact same arbitration panel, but I don't believe those three arbitrators ever sat together outside the Landis case.


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

I'd like to see him racing as a pro again. Do I seriously doubt ASO will ever let him in the tour ever again. 
I'd like to see him riding in europe evem more. But I believe he is guilty. However, I don't think he should be banned, or permanently removed from pro cycling forever. 2-4 years is a VERY long time for a pro athlete. 
On top of the current penelty's/bans, they shouldn't be allowed to ride the event that they were busted in, ie Floyd at TdF.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Oldteen said:


> Disclaimers:
> 
> 
> http://www.iafs2008.com/b_seminar1.asp


Funny link....you do know that Blackledge lives about 10 miles from Floyd. Proximity of course does not equal bias but the likelihood is high that he has fallen under Dr. Arnie's spell.

Floyd will never race an ASO race again, but what happens if/when the ASO/UCI make up and become friends again? Will the cycling world revert back to 3 years ago where the GT's were at war? No better way for the RCS to stick to the ASO then by inviting him to the Giro.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Funny link....you do know that Blackledge lives about 10 miles from Floyd. Proximity of course does not equal bias but the likelihood is high that he has fallen under Dr. Arnie's spell.


Apart from the fact that Blackledge (probably like thousands of other people) lives within 10 miles of Landis, why is the likelihood high?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> Funny link....you do know that Blackledge lives about 10 miles from Floyd. Proximity of course does not equal bias but the likelihood is high that he has fallen under Dr. Arnie's spell.


Something easily worked out through the free exchange of ideas in an open forum of his peers. Such as I find the argument that an experienced chemist will be influenced to put his reputation on the line by a medical doctor merely because they live within a short distance of each other unpersuasive*. But accepting your argument, what would you estimate the distance it takes to become objective?

*As a counter example take the large number of cases where faculty in the same department have violent disagreements in their fields of expertise. How do you explain this in light of the fact that they are separated by feet not miles?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

asgelle said:


> Absolutely untrue (but why let facts get in the way?). I challenge you or anyone else to find any reference to ethics in the justification for awarding fees.


It appears you did not read the part were the panel found that despite Landis’s claims, there was “no evidence” of misconduct on the part USADA in prosecuting the case.

“On the contrary,” the panel concluded, “if there was any litigation misconduct it may be ascribed to the appellant.” 

In addition the panel faulted Landis’s legal team for intentionally driving the costs of the appeal higher when they “gave notice requiring a number of witnesses to be present in person for the cross-examination in New York, but then elected not to call them thus causing the respondent to incur significant and ultimately unnecessary cost.”


Travis Tygart said the court’s unprecedented decision to order Landis to pay was “in no small part to the fact that he set out to embarrass not only the French (national anti-doping) lab, but the entire anti-doping process. He intended to bankrupt WADA in the process. The decision to charge him for costs is a result of that.” The panel, however, limited the figure to $100,000...they could have charged him over $1 million

Finally, it is not just Tygart or I that felt this was the case. In a recent interview Mike Straubel, the head of the Sports Law Clinic at the Valparaiso University Law School said

"The way in which the experts … were aggressive [in their testimony and statements for Landis] backfired, too. I think there was one section of the opinion where the panel took the experts to task for being a little too partisan and a bit too much advocates rather than experts."


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> It appears you did not read the part were the panel found that despite Landis’s claims, there was “no evidence” of misconduct on the part USADA in prosecuting the case. ...


Many words but nowhere does it say the behavior was unethical. That is wholly your invention.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

asgelle said:


> Many words but nowhere does it say the behavior was unethical. That is wholly your invention.


so you do not think that "litigation misconduct" is unethical? The CAS certainly did, that is why they charged him $100,000 for it

BTW, if we really want to continue this it should be in the doping forum


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> so you do not think that "litigation misconduct" is unethical? The CAS certainly did, that is why they charged him $100,000 for it


Whatever my opinion is doesn't really matter as it just that; my opinion. It would be absurd to project my opinion onto the CAS. 

But back to the CAS, again you misrepresent what was actually in the decision. The fact is CAS did not find any misconduct on part of the Landis team. I would refer you to the first bullet under section 289. "... If there was any litigation misconduct it may be ascribed to the Appellant." CAS allows for the possibility of misconduct but stops short of actually declaring there was any.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

asgelle said:


> Whatever my opinion is doesn't really matter as it just that; my opinion. It would be absurd to project my opinion onto the CAS.
> 
> But back to the CAS, again you misrepresent what was actually in the decision. The fact is CAS did not find any misconduct on part of the Landis team. I would refer you to the first bullet under section 289. "... If there was any litigation misconduct it may be ascribed to the Appellant." CAS allows for the possibility of misconduct but stops short of actually declaring there was any.


and the $100,000 was for what? just for fun?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> and the $100,000 was for what? just for fun?


It was exactly for what was said in Section 289. No more, no less. Have whatever opinions you want, but don't put your words in the mouth of the CAS.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

asgelle said:


> It was exactly for what was said in Section 289. No more, no less. Have whatever opinions you want, but don't put your words in the mouth of the CAS.


Did you even read it? I am not sure how you can read that an not come away that the panel with pissed for his misconduct. ....that is why they said “if there was any litigation misconduct it may be ascribed to the appellant.” They then list his misconduct, including the intentionally trying to drive up costs.

you can read it here if you have not yet
http://velonews.com/media/LandisCAS08.pdf

As I said, It was not just I, Tygart, Straubel who came to this conclusion but also Velonews and cyclingnews.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> Did you even read it? I am not sure how you can read that an not come away that the panel with pissed for his misconduct. ....that is why they said “if there was any litigation misconduct it may be ascribed to the appellant.” They then list his misconduct, including the intentionally trying to drive up costs.


Of course I read it and I see the words as meaning exactly what they say. The panel could easily have written, "There was misconduct and it is ascribed to the appellant.” but they didn't. Therefore it is obvious that for whatever reason, they chose not to find misconduct on the part of the Landis team. That's just reading what's down in black and white.

The decision lists conduct, actions, the appellation "mis" is an editorial creation of yours.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

asgelle said:


> Of course I read it and I see the words as meaning exactly what they say. The panel could easily have written, "There was misconduct and it is ascribed to the appellant.” but they didn't. Therefore it is obvious that for whatever reason, they chose not to find misconduct on the part of the Landis team. That's just reading what's down in black and white.
> 
> The decision lists conduct, actions, the appellation "mis" is an editorial creation of yours.


so the Landis team actions of the calling the witnesses to NYC to drive up cost was ethical? The CAS did not think so, that is why they charge him $100,000. ...An action that is very rare for them. 

You may try to parse the words however you like, but as I have pointed out most informed observers share my view of this.


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

asgelle said:


> Also not true (LaTasha Jenkins) unless you mean the exact same arbitration panel, but I don't believe those three arbitrators ever sat together outside the Landis case.


I should have clarified my statement to read "No athlete HAD won a doping case at the time FL's appeal". The Jenkins case was decided AFTER the FL appeal was filed, and was apparently decided not on overall guilt but rather mainly on testing procedure violations. 
http://www.valpo.edu/law/news/121407.php
Significant testing protocol violations also occurred in the FL case, yet he was found guilty. Perhaps FL's legal team & its public hearings did shame this US ADA kangaroo court into some appearance of impartiality, at least in lower profile cases such as Jenkins. 

We could all continue rehashing the FL case ad nauseum, but the argument is rather moot at this point. FL lost his case, many (myself included) feel the current anti-doping system (admin & labs) has too little credibility, too many athletes continue to dope (perhaps because of this lack of testing credibility), and FL will never again ride the TdF.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Oldteen said:


> I should have clarified my statement to read "No athlete HAD won a doping case at the time FL's appeal". The Jenkins case was decided AFTER the FL appeal was filed, and was apparently decided not on overall guilt but rather mainly on testing procedure violations.
> http://www.valpo.edu/law/news/121407.php
> Significant testing protocol violations also occurred in the FL case, yet he was found guilty. Perhaps FL's legal team & its public hearings did shame this US ADA kangaroo court into some appearance of impartiality, at least in lower profile cases such as Jenkins.
> 
> We could all continue rehashing the FL case ad nauseum, but the argument is rather moot at this point. FL lost his case, many (myself included) feel the current anti-doping system (admin & labs) has too little credibility, too many athletes continue to dope (perhaps because of this lack of testing credibility), and FL will never again ride the TdF.


I fail to see how CAS could be a kangaroo court and their decision was far harsher then the first AAA decision.


----------



## roadie_490 (Jun 11, 2004)

Mootsie said:


> He had synthetic testosterone in his system. That's all that counts.



You might have synthetic testosterone in your system too. It can come from your foods. I don’t ever recall there being a listing of how much synthetic to natural testosterone was in his system. Just that he was positive for high testosterone and there was a presence of synthetic testosterone.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

So, did Floyd sign with someone or not.......let's get the thread back on topic.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> So, did Floyd sign with someone or not.......let's get the thread back on topic.


Should be official in a few days
http://www.velonews.com/article/83022


----------

