# not flame bait. FLOYD IS INNOCENT and my hero.



## haiku d'etat (Apr 28, 2001)

rail away, but i made ONE post in procycling before his bonk stage, and i make one more after the claims.

Floyd is innocent, and Floyd is now on my list of people i hugely respect and greatly admire.

and i completely believe in him.

ALLEZ FLANDIS.

-J's

and as a side-note, i do respect the level of "discussion" here. seems very few snipes, flame wars, and moreons (sic), and many genuinely interested and genuinely informed folks posting about these topics.

if WCP or Graham sells a poster of Floyd from this year, i will frame it, and proudly display it over my fireplace mantle in the living room.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

haiku d'etat said:


> rail away, but i made ONE post in procycling before his bonk stage, and i make one more after the claims.
> 
> Floyd is innocent, and Floyd is now on my list of people i hugely respect and greatly admire.
> 
> ...


 > > > > > ...I too believe Floyd will be vindicated...I think this is something that had to do with his physiology after the big bonk ( I know about b0nking)... ...I just hope the ASO doesn't rush in and strip his Malliot Jaune before this all plays out... b0nk


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

+1 Amen.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Me too J's...me too. It ain't looking good for him now though. I still admire Tyler as well. Let's hope for a better outcome for Floyd than Tyler.


----------



## almccm (May 3, 2003)

I agree with you. He will be cleared. I hope it doesn't take too long. He deserves to celebrate his victory.


----------



## brewser123 (Sep 14, 2004)

I agree we should support him until he is proven guilty of a crime. 

Everyone is too eager to jump ship although it is hard to blame people after all the other cyclists lately who have claimed innocence but were found to be guilty.

How sad it would be to be in his shoes if he is innocent as he claims and the world has already hung him.


----------



## Trevor! (Feb 28, 2004)

Likewise will Ullrich and the others implicated in that Spanish affair. Lets allow due process to have its way and then when the FINAL TRUTH is out we can see who is worthy of being supported.

I sure hope that there is good news to all of this - its too hard to really come up with a solid opinion at this stage.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Seems to be...*



brewser123 said:


> I agree we should support him until he is proven guilty of a crime.
> 
> Everyone is too eager to jump ship although it is hard to blame people after all the other cyclists lately who have claimed innocence but were found to be guilty.
> 
> How sad it would be to be in his shoes if he is innocent as he claims and the world has already hung him.


Seems to be a lot of the same comments going on in here like back when Hamilton got busted originally. Notes that he will be vindicated and found innocent, never was of course, and he's looking at being a 2 time loser with Operacion Puerto and all.

But over to Landis, I also hope, just like I did for Hamilton, that he's innocent. But let's face it. The chances of his B test coming back anything but positive is probably slim to none. The test will come back, he'll be positive, he'll get sacked from his team, he'll lose his Tour title, and spend the next 2 years appealing, and being found "guilty" all over again. Unfortunately, being the teammate of a guy who got popped for EPO, the odds are stacked heavily against the athletes who do test positive, and it's not often that they get found innocent, or that their appeals go anywhere, except down in flames. I would love for Landis to be innocent, but the odds are really increasingly against him. It stinks.


----------



## wzq622 (Aug 3, 2004)

I support Floyd, guilty or not.

For me, it's become a grudge against the institution.

So what if Floyd's level of testosterone to epitestosterone level is off? They havent said how far off the levels are to suspect him of injecting steroids or anything of the like. I'm pretty sure I'd be chemically inbalanced if I bonked the day before a 70 mile solo breakaway.

Every rider goes to the doping control bus after each stage, and their results are scrutinized, more so for the "stars". Each rider is then cleared to start the next day if they are clean. So why wasn't Floyd barred from starting Stg 18 if his testosterone level was off after Stg 17?

Why would Floyd risk his reputation and his good name when 9 or 10 high profile riders were indicted in Opericion Puerto a week before the race started? There may be much to gain for Floyd with a Tour win but I don't think he would do such a thing when the "Vampires" are hovering over the riders in light of the current events concerning Basso and Ullrich.

The fact that 5 riders from the former Liberty Seguros team were cleared raises much doubt in my mind about WADA's testing methods and UCI's judicial procedures. Of course, they are never at fault and the now innocent riders will be tainted with the false accusations.

If Floyd clears his name, then it's very likely that he'll be tainted as well and the cycling community will view him in a negative light until his name disappears from every race roster in the world.

I hope Floyd single-handedly brings down the UCI and WADA and discredits the authorities. That will be a victory for cycling.


----------



## All Mountain (Jul 19, 2006)

Floyd's levels indicated do not seem all that thigh?


----------



## wzq622 (Aug 3, 2004)

haiku d'etat said:


> if WCP or Graham sells a poster of Floyd from this year, i will frame it, and proudly display it over my fireplace mantle in the living room.



I say we buy every copy of the 2006 Tour and every pic of Floyd just to show "them" that we dont care.


----------



## firstrax (Nov 13, 2001)

All Mountain said:


> Floyd's levels indicated do not seem all that thigh?


In France those levels are considered fatal. Of course in France an egg plants testosterone would appear to be high also.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

Personally, I am pretty convinced that the cycling sport is pretty corrupt. Designer drugs that prevent them from being caught by today's testing procedures, sort of like the steroids that Bonds was taking for major league baseball. I am getting rather disappointed with pro sports in general, and not just cycling. I think Lance has been doping for quite a while, and that it has been overlooked for the most part because of the money and interest that Lance has generated in the sport.

While I was racing in the 80's, my brothers and sisters slightly knew about Lemond because I would talk about him. However, they know plenty about Lance and I never really talk about Lance with them. Even the French ended up liking Lance. These sports are all about the dollars and cents. Same thing happened with baseball after their strike in the 90's. People didn't like the players much, and about the only thing they had going on was Cal Ripken beating Lou Gerig's record for the number of consecutive games played. They kept playing that up forever and making Ripken a household name.

Cycling benefited immensely through Lance, and Lance has a lot of money such that he can afford the best lawyers in town. The amount of litigation he has been involved in is utterly insane. Landis will probably be as innocent as OJ. The Courts screwed up in the OJ case, but let's hope they get Landis' case right, whether innocent or guilty.

Me, I hope that he is ACTUALLY innocent, and if he is guilty, I hope the Court finds him guilty and sets an example. What is really not fair about drugging is the riders that are clean. For them I feel really bad. They have been cheated out of what they have worked so hard for and they have followed the rules. If drugging is allowed, then it doesn't become a battle between people, but a battle between doctors. That would truly suck.

In the end, I hope that pro sports finds a way to deal with this stuff so that it no longer becomes an issue. At this point, I am glad that I pursued a college and law school career instead of a cycling career, because there is no way that I would have ever doped.

Let's let the facts regarding Landis develop and then pass judgment. However, I can tell you that I personally wouldn't be feeling so grandious the day after suffering a bonk and struggling up the entire side of a mountain, such that I could hammer all the mountains out the following day.


----------



## Antonio_B (Dec 9, 2005)

firstrax said:


> In France those levels are considered fatal. Of course in France an egg plants testosterone would appear to be high also.


This post is useless without pictures.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Silly my friend...*



wzq622 said:


> I support Floyd, guilty or not.
> 
> For me, it's become a grudge against the institution.
> 
> ...


So would you show support for a murderer as well? Guilty or not?

Don't hold a grudge against the institution because they keep catching people, hold a grudge over the riders who are the dopers, the ones that keep making the sport look bad. It's not the UCI doing this, it's the RIDERS... Again, Floyd might be innocent of this, I hope that he is, it would be nice. Things are stacked against him though.

If Floyd tested positive in stage 17, he was allowed to start 18, because believe it or not, unlike on CSI, these tests take time to complete, and the results weren't available until the other day, so here they are.

You don't become chemically imbalanced from bonking the day before. Not enough to test that high, and aside from that, he wasn't the only one working hard that day. 

Why would he risk his good name? Because if you win le Tour, you essentially become a God in the cycling world. And you can write your own ticket for a long time, and make a lot of money, even IF you never win a race again later on down the road. It's just like all professional sports, you win big, you get a big payday.

Not every rider gets tested every day of the Tour. The stage winners, randoms, and I can't remember if it is the top 5 or 10 guys get tested everyday. If they tested everyone every single day, there wouldn't be testing results for years on end, again, these tests take time to complete if done properly and with the proper protocols.

The 5 riders cleared from Astana were never tested for anything, the riders didn't fail doping tests, their names were brought up in the Operacion Puerto, but were later cleared through the Spanish authorities. Test results were not involved with those guys, so the testing methods are not suspect. They are not tainted, and will be back riding for their team before the end of this week. And guys who gets busted for doping, if they're good, tend to get many chances to come back and race again. Look at Millar, Virenque, Merckx, Vandebroucke, and so on and so forth. I think the cycling community is more likely to welcome folks back if they get busted, serve their "time" so to speak, and come back and win again. Happens all the time really. If Floyd clears his name, his name will be clear. He'll be racing again, and come back to possibly win le Tour again next year.

How is Floyd going to bring down the UCI and WADA? They have better funding, and more time at this than he does, and lots of times, it ends up being the rider at fault here. So like I said before, methinks your anger is misdirected, and it should be directed at the riders taking the sport to new lows, and not the agencies busting them.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

100% support for floyd. Still innocent until proven guilty in my neck of the woods.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*So...*



desmo13 said:


> 100% support for floyd. Still innocent until proven guilty in my neck of the woods.


So you have one positive test. What happens when #2 comes through with most likely the same result?


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

it sounds to me, especially J.Haik, that you are allowing your heart to rule your head. Simply because you want him or believe him to be innocent shouldn't disregard the very possibility he is guilty. Everyone thought Tyler H. was innocent. 

I like Floyd too, hell I like alot of dopers and I have not decided whether I think he used or not but come on just to go blindly out and defend without all the information released yet is moronic and pure idioicy. That's like saying no matter what Floyd does or did I think he is the GREATEST LOL what a load of ****. Have some respect for both the institution and the other racers who are NOT under suspicion you frisbie chucking cheva monkeys

you are welcome to all the Floyd posters you can fit in your trunk if he is guilty and I like Tyler Hamilton better because of his foundation for MS and his taste in women regardless of his disgrace lies and duplicity

Oh and as far as the record books go, just in case I didn't piss all the right people off, Lance will go down as the 7 time TDF winner who never got busted for anything gave millions to cancer treatment and will be regarded as the best TDF rider for at least the next 7 years. Judge by the evidence not by personality


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Yo carbon..*



CARBON110 said:


> it sounds to me, especially J.Haik, that you are allowing your heart to rule your head. Simply because you want him or believe him to be innocent shouldn't disregard the very possibility he is guilty. Everyone thought Tyler H. was innocent.
> 
> I like Floyd too, hell I like alot of dopers and I have not decided whether I think he used or not but come on just to go blindly out and defend without all the information released yet is moronic and pure idioicy. That's like saying no matter what Floyd does or did I think he is the GREATEST LOL what a load of ****. Have some respect for both the institution and the other racers who are NOT under suspicion you frisbie chucking cheva monkeys
> 
> ...


Yo carbon, welcome back, and nice PCU reference in there.


----------



## xcdave (Jul 23, 2006)

I think the test is untrustworthy. Testosterone and epitestosterone are already present in the human body - what's causing all the ruckus is the ratio of one to the other. In fact, the ratio of what was acceptable recently changed from 6:1 to 4:1 - where the test really that far out of whack before? There are two ways to affect that ratio as well - the numerator (testosterone) and the denominator (epitesosterone). If the denominator goes down, the ratio goes up! What a mess!


----------



## nocwrench (Nov 17, 2005)

floyd will prove he can naturally produce abnormal amounts of testosterone just as many before him have successfully done. this test is routinely proven unreliable and only serves to drag innocent riders names through the mud. Landis is clean.


----------



## wzq622 (Aug 3, 2004)

magnolialover said:


> So would you show support for a murderer as well? Guilty or not?
> 
> Don't hold a grudge against the institution because they keep catching people, hold a grudge over the riders who are the dopers, the ones that keep making the sport look bad. It's not the UCI doing this, it's the RIDERS... Again, Floyd might be innocent of this, I hope that he is, it would be nice. Things are stacked against him though.
> 
> ...



How can you compare homicide to doping on the same level??? That's ludicrous. 

As for my comment about Floyd taking down WADA and UCI, you clearly misread my intention. It's apparent that I'm not serious, and that I was merely venting my frustration. Not everything is literal.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*We'll see...*



nocwrench said:


> floyd will prove he can naturally produce abnormal amounts of testosterone just as many before him have successfully done. this test is routinely proven unreliable and only serves to drag innocent riders names through the mud. Landis is clean.


We shall see, and again, I hope that he is.

But I ask, if he produces higher amounts of testosterone than normal, why hasn't he tested positive before? Why hasn't this come up on his medical checks before? Sounds like a "Hamilton" type defense there, disappearing twin and all.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Why is it?*



xcdave said:


> I think the test is untrustworthy. Testosterone and epitestosterone are already present in the human body - what's causing all the ruckus is the ratio of one to the other. In fact, the ratio of what was acceptable recently changed from 6:1 to 4:1 - where the test really that far out of whack before? There are two ways to affect that ratio as well - the numerator (testosterone) and the denominator (epitesosterone). If the denominator goes down, the ratio goes up! What a mess!


Why is it that whenever someone comes up positive, the first thing that comes under scrutiny is the testing? Testosterone tests have been carried out for years on end.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

_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." 

"All I want to do is ask that everybody take a step back. I don't know what your position is now. And I wouldn't blame you if it was a bit skeptical because of what cycling has been through in the past and the way other cases have gone. All I'm asking for is just that I be given a chance to prove that I'm innocent. Cycling has a traditional way of trying people in the court of public opinion before they ever get a chance to do anything else. I can't stop that. But I would like to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, since that's the way we do things in America." 

An AP reporter asked Landis, "How do you explain this fabulous performance on stage 17?" 

"Listen, there are 20 stages in the Tour," Landis said. "And every day you see a fabulous performance. So explain the other 19." 

Landis said he would request his B sample to be tested Friday. Regardless of the finding, he doesn't expect the media storm cloud to clear any time soon. 

"Unfortunately it's not going to go away, no matter what happens next," he said. "It appears that this is a bigger story than winning the Tour." 

Landis said he had a hard time articulating how he felt upon hearing the news of his A sample results. But he had no problem commenting on his family being brought in the limelight. 

"I think anything goes in this situation, but one thing that did make me upset about the way things have gone in that last two days was the way my parents were treated by the press," he said. "I can handle anything. I don't look for sympathy. I take what I get in life and I deal with it. But my mom's a saint so I ask, please, leave her alone."_

Do those sound like the words of a cheater? 

I'll reiterate that something seems fishy with this whole situation. I can't imagine that given all of the attention centered around doping in this Tour, that Floyd would risk it. I don't get the impression that he's that much of an idiot....


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

magnolialover said:


> Why is it that whenever someone comes up positive, the first thing that comes under scrutiny is the testing? Testosterone tests have been carried out for years on end.


Why is it that some assume that these riders are guilty before proved so? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that 5 of the Wurth riders that were booted from the Tour were later exonerated. These guys were lamb-basted and hung out to dry before there was an ounce of concrete proof... They were booted out of the Tour quicker than you could read their names off of a list.

You're talking about the man's livelihood here - his reputation. If it were me, I'd question the testing too. If I felt that I were falsely accused of a crime, you're damn right I'd question everything...


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Indeed...*



James OCLV said:


> Why is it that some assume that these riders are guilty before proved so? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that 5 of the Wurth riders that were booted from the Tour were later exonerated. These guys were lamb-basted and hung out to dry before there was an ounce of concrete proof...
> 
> You're talking about the man's livelihood here - his reputation. If it were me, I'd question the testing too. If I felt that I were falsely accused of a crime, you're damn right I'd question everything...


Indeed it is, and I'm sure that he will challenge it as much as he can. The odds are stacked against him unfortunately. It'll be hard for him to prove his innocence if both of the tests come up positive.

The 5 from Astana were not hung out to dry, they were excused from the Tour, and were later cleared. Last I knew, they still had teams to ride for, still have their contracts, and are free to compete again.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

magnolialover said:


> Indeed it is, and I'm sure that he will challenge it as much as he can. The odds are stacked against him unfortunately. It'll be hard for him to prove his innocence if both of the tests come up positive.
> 
> The 5 from Astana were not hung out to dry, they were excused from the Tour, and were later cleared. Last I knew, they still had teams to ride for, still have their contracts, and are free to compete again.


I don't agree that the odds are stacked against him - I seem to recall that in the majority of these cases (similar to Floyd's), the rulings have favored the athlete.

Indeed. However, they were still punished for a crime that they didn't commit. I think that they were hung out to dry... for almost every rider, riding in the TdF is the highlight of their season. Floyd's case is much more "high profile". If he's innocent, he won't recover so quicly.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*I disagree..*



James OCLV said:


> I don't agree that the odds are stacked against him - I seem to recall that in the majority of these cases (similar to Floyd's), the rulings have favored the athlete.
> 
> Indeed. However, they were still punished for a crime that they didn't commit. I think that they were hung out to dry... for almost every rider, riding in the TdF is the highlight of their season. Floyd's case is much more "high profile". If he's innocent, he won't recover so quicly.


I don't think that those 5 guys were hung out to dry. They were dismissed, per the ProTour regulations that say, if you're under investigation of doping, you don't ride until you're either cleared or not. They were cleared, they get to ride now. The really stinky part of that whole thing is that Vinokourov missed the Tour because his teammates were under suspiscion and all. As mentioned before, they have their contract, they have their team, and they can now ride at will again. They weren't "punished". 

Take a look at all of the doping cases that have come before WADA and the CAS, and tell me how many were dismissed? Not many, regardless of what the athletes tested positive for. Again, the odds, as in how many cases were looked at, and reviewed, not many have come out on the side of the athletes involved, those are the statistics of the matter, so indeed, the odds are stacked against him for now.


----------



## walleyeangler (Nov 4, 2005)

What kind of moron would see the field of the TDF torn up with doping allegations and then go out and dope? He did not do it. Lance did not do it. So many who were accused without proof did not do it. When a class of students all flunk a test, why is it they look at the students and not the test? The testing for all phases of doping has to be suspect. 

Landis is a champion. No question.

Ice Man


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*One..*



walleyeangler said:


> What kind of moron would see the field of the TDF torn up with doping allegations and then go out and dope? He did not do it. Lance did not do it. So many who were accused without proof did not do it. When a class of students all flunk a test, why is it they look at the students and not the test? The testing for all phases of doping has to be suspect.
> 
> Landis is a champion. No question.
> 
> Ice Man


One who thinks that he can get away with it.

And if the entire peloton is "doing it" as people sometimes say; how is it Armstrong can beat them all for 7 years running?

When students flunk a test, they are taking the test and testing their knowledge, that analogy is kind of weak. Doping tests test, as we know, the presence of doping products, and or substances deemed illegal by the UCI and WADA. Students don't blame the test, the only have themselves to blame for their failure, same for riders who get popped for doping.

Landis is still a champion, for now. Time will tell what happens to him and all. I hope he is cleared.


----------



## Fibroma (Jul 3, 2006)

IF his B test is high and IF it is because he doped, then I don't care what anyone says: he's a CHEATER, he should lose the glory, and get booted from the team.


----------



## Mr_Snips2 (Jun 26, 2006)

I can't stand him...However i dont believe he cheated in any way shape or form...

Snips


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Doesn't matter...*



Mr_Snips2 said:


> I can't stand him...However i dont believe he cheated in any way shape or form...
> 
> Snips


Doesn't matter what we believe or not, it's what comes through in the test results...

I hope that he didn't cheat either. I really hope he didn't.

Good luck to Floyd, he'll need it.


----------



## walleyeangler (Nov 4, 2005)

Landis is a champion. The tests are flawed. There is nothing wrong with the analogy. Though some are, I'm sure, everyone can't be guilty. And only a moron would dope under the scrutiny of the TDF. And Landis is not a moron. 

I bet some of you took part in lynch mobs in previous lifetimes.

Have a nice life.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

I just listened to his interview again, http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10596.0.html
I feel bad for the guy, and have high hopes this turns out for him.


----------



## rickkkus (Jun 4, 2006)

Trevor! said:


> Likewise will Ullrich and the others implicated in that Spanish affair. Lets allow due process to have its way and then when the FINAL TRUTH is out we can see who is worthy of being supported.
> 
> I sure hope that there is good news to all of this - its too hard to really come up with a solid opinion at this stage.


Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!! Only after the full process with the Spanish affair is complete should we conclude that Ullrich was not truly the bridesmaid we thought he was! (Sorry, couldn't resist that.)


----------



## duckstrap (Mar 8, 2002)

*I'm with Haiku*

OK,
I'm not a corny guy, usually, but... I'm rereading the Bicycling interview with Dave Z., and I'm relistening to the post-stage comments from Floyd. What I see is someone who is pretty down to earth, knows that cycling is cruel to the end, is very serious about doing the best he can, but doesn't take himself too seriously, is surprised by the attention that the maillot jeune brings, actually probably knows what it's like to have to milk the cows at 4 am. I'm also seeing a guy who, though he's had his differences with his parents and upbringing, has a pretty deep respect for their choices, and is probably influenced by them in more ways than he'd care to admit.

And I'm thinking is this guy a liar, and a cheat?

Naaaaah, don't think so.


----------



## bonkmiester (Sep 23, 2005)

magnolialover said:


> Indeed it is, and I'm sure that he will challenge it as much as he can. The odds are stacked against him unfortunately. It'll be hard for him to prove his innocence if both of the tests come up positive.
> 
> The 5 from Astana were not hung out to dry, they were excused from the Tour, and were later cleared. Last I knew, they still had teams to ride for, still have their contracts, and are free to compete again.


...but we all know the B sample WILL come up "positive", because it came out of the same post stage pee, right?.......if you test the same pee for the same thing your gonna get the same result...... unless mistakes were made on the A sample, or the B test is a little more investigative....is it?

BUT, if more sophisticated analysis is done, it might vindicate him.....that will come later, at his expense, after appeals........ 

My problem with race testing is, there is no baseline test >>>>>> there is no pre-ride am sample, so the post ride sample is bullshit....you can't tell what happened physiologically from one day to the next.................. i* think there should be mandatory testing for every rider evrey stage, both pre & post ride*........the whole series needs to be studied, and from that re-evaluate what is and isn't "normal".............

the physiology of what happens to someone on a GT is just different than Track & Field events and freakin baseball, and i think that standards for cycling need to be redefined

also, to me, this just affair doesn't make sense...... a testosterone administration overnight isn't going to produce a spectacular recovery.......and he wasn't juiced up on speed, was he?........

that recovery came from rehydration IVs, lotsa food, rest, massage, a BEER <GRIN>, a talk from Eddie, and gettin freakin mad at the sh!t in the press ...... and the 8 min he made back were because they all thought he would bonk again and get caught......... 

ok, i've vented.......thanks for you time.......... 
g'night b0nk


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Lynch mobs..*



walleyeangler said:


> Landis is a champion. The tests are flawed. There is nothing wrong with the analogy. Though some are, I'm sure, everyone can't be guilty. And only a moron would dope under the scrutiny of the TDF. And Landis is not a moron.
> 
> I bet some of you took part in lynch mobs in previous lifetimes.
> 
> Have a nice life.


Well, lynch mobs didn't wait for evidence, there are many of us here who are saying that we are waiting for all of the results to come in.

The tests have been around for a long time. The tests themselves are not flawed, but it is possible that the test protocols were not properly followed. They have had tests for testosterone since the mid 60's, and have refined it through the years. Again, just like the blood doping testing brouhaha from the Hamilton case, when folks were saying that it was a bad test, if it is so bad, and so flawed; how come more people are flunking for testosterone? If the testing is so bad, and so flawed, there should be false positives all over the place, but alas, they're not.

Do you know Landis? If you do know him, then yes, you can equivocally state that he's not a moron, but we all don't know him, and we don't know if he's stupid enough to dope or not. I hope not. But we'll have to wait and see what the results are.


----------



## WampaOne (May 28, 2004)

walleyeangler said:


> Landis is a champion. The tests are flawed. There is nothing wrong with the analogy. Though some are, I'm sure, everyone can't be guilty. And only a moron would dope under the scrutiny of the TDF. And Landis is not a moron.
> 
> I bet some of you took part in lynch mobs in previous lifetimes.
> 
> Have a nice life.


Could you tell me how the test is flawed? And please don't base it on your opinion or gut feeling unless you are trained such that your opinion should matter.


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*This...*



WampaOne said:


> Could you tell me how the test is flawed? And please don't base it on your opinion or gut feeling unless you are trained such that your opinion should matter.


This is what I'm talking about here.

Folks, including myself, don't know if the tests are flawed. So far, we have a statement from Landis saying that the tests are flawed. Last I knew, he wasn't a scientist or a doctor or a researcher in the field of drug testing and detection. 

I'm on the WampaOne bandwagon here. I'd like to see someone tell me how the tests are flawed.. And we're not talking about a PR statement either from a cycling team. How about some serious scientific evidence.


----------



## 38Chevy (Jun 11, 2005)

I don't have cable, as I don't watch TV enough to justify it. We saw some of the tour on cable while on vacation a couple weeks ago, we enjoyed it, although I don't know racing strategy, or anything.

I kept up through RBR, though. When I heard the MJ bonked abysmally and was out, and it was a name I recognized, man, I was glued. Then, he destroyed them all the next day, how cool is that?

He went on to win...rock on, Floyd Landis!

Now, a coworker has loaned me the last five stages on DVD her and her husband recorded off OLN. I'm watching as I exercise (NordicTrak, I don't have a trainer). Floyd's falling to the back of the peloton on Col Croix de Fer (sp?), and I'm shutting down for the night. Man, I can't wait to watch the rest of it. I'm really enjoying that I get to see some of a great tour.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

Magnolia I hope you are well and nice catch on the PCU  

It is all to familiar. Tyler did the same thing and none of us want him to be guilty. I read everyones post and Magnolia is using rational thinking based on historical cycling observations or facts, the fact Floyd has not tested positive before for this or any other event, and most convincing of all is to think outside the box.

You should agree that if life has taught you anything it's that people can convince themselves of anything. 

"who would dope after this Tour?"

"someone who thinks he can get away with it"

Amen! 

Certainly the tests possess error but they are the standard by which pro cycling abides. Lance never tested for anything and he has been tested 1000sx Ullrich I suspect was tested alot but was busted for X and now w/e else. 

Use the information not the persona of the person and wait until you have all the information. I am amazed how impressionable some of you are but it's understandable

If Floyd did use it is the worst case of drug abuse in cycling due to its time and person and will leave no doubt in even the most hopeful minds and hearts of cycling enthusiasts that the race is full of drugs and bad road artists who draw lousy images of private parts =)

Besides Levi has a smoken hawt wife and admits his limitations and still gets paid mad for his effort! He is a canidate for Rogain and doesn't get half the credit deserved and lives modestly while driving a 2 door Toyota pickup and races all frickn year. I hope Disco puts a great team behind him for some good races.

I think that guys the tits!


----------



## Asiago (Jan 28, 2004)

*Not sure he said "flawed"*



magnolialover said:


> This is what I'm talking about here.
> 
> Folks, including myself, don't know if the tests are flawed. So far, we have a statement from Landis saying that the tests are flawed. Last I knew, he wasn't a scientist or a doctor or a researcher in the field of drug testing and detection.
> 
> I'm on the WampaOne bandwagon here. I'd like to see someone tell me how the tests are flawed.. And we're not talking about a PR statement either from a cycling team. How about some serious scientific evidence.


Maybe he did in a later interview, but what I saw quoted was him stating that of the 100 or so cyclists that have turned a "positive" testosterone test have later had that positive thrown out.

I hope Floyd is innocent, but I'm reserving my judgement for now.

One thing I found interesting, and I'm not sure I understood it correctly as I'm not a scientist of any type, was a post by Steve in other threads about the T/E test and what a positive on the A sample means and what is then done with the testing of the B sample. If I understood the post correctly, it is not until the B sample that the actual levels of testosterone are checked. 

Please don't let me down Floyd, I don't think I could take it.


----------



## Asiago (Jan 28, 2004)

*levi*



CARBON110 said:


> Besides Levi has a smoken hawt wife and admits his limitations and still gets paid mad for his effort! He is a canidate for Rogain and doesn't get half the credit deserved and lives modestly while driving a 2 door Toyota pickup and races all frickn year. I hope Disco puts a great team behind him for some good races.
> 
> I think that guys the tits!


Eh, Odessa just doesn't do it for me anymore!

And hey, if anyone in the pro peloton could have naturally high testosterone levels, its gotta be Levi. Dude, just look at his hairline!  

I like Levi. I like the way he races. I utterly respect the fact that as a potential tour podium contender he looked at the Dauphine as a race worthy to really go all out on and try to win (which I agree with) while the other favorites went and hid. Well, except for Menchov.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

*what phloyd said.*



Asiago said:


> Maybe he did in a later interview, but what I saw quoted was him stating that of the 100 or so cyclists that have turned a "positive" testosterone test have later had that positive thrown out.
> .


"In hundreds of cases, no one's ever lost one," Landis told SI. <a href="http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul28news2">cyclingnews.com</a>

I don't know if he's suggesting the test is flawed as much as there's an explanation for the results. my $ is on him slipping the noose on this rather easily.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

wzq622 said:


> I support Floyd, guilty or not.
> 
> For me, it's become a grudge against the institution.
> 
> ...



Not to pick an argument at all but I don't think WADA or UCI had anything to do with the situation involving the 5 Astana riders or the team's exclusion from the TdF.


----------



## Bryan (Sep 19, 2004)

CARBON110 said:


> That's like saying no matter what Floyd does or did I think he is the GREATEST LOL what a load of ****. Have some respect for both the institution and the other racers who are NOT under suspicion......


*Well said!*






CARBON110 said:


> Oh and as far as the record books go, just in case I didn't piss all the right people off, Lance will go down as the 7 time TDF winner who never got busted for anything gave millions to cancer treatment and will be regarded as the best TDF rider for at least the next 7 years. Judge by the evidence not by personality


*Touche!*


----------



## ebroil (Feb 10, 2003)

magnolialover said:


> They weren't "punished".


That's a litte disingenous. Yes, they still have their teams and contracts. No doping control agency took action against them. But they're professional athelets. They only have so many good years, and they only have one Tour de France a year. I think that has to be called punishment. Nevermind the damage done to their reputations.


----------



## jabpn (Oct 14, 2005)

Instead of questioning Floyd or the testing procedures at this point, why aren't we questioning the descision by those who made the annoucement in the first place. Due to the fact that Floyd is as big a name as he is, and due to the fact he just won the Tour, it should have been kept soley between Floyd and his team until all facts are gathered including the "B" test results. (Did everyone like my runon sentence =] )

One thing that I would like to know is exactly how does the elevated levels give an athlete "super performance" in 24 hours. Over time I can understand the muscle gain etc, etc. This of course would be unfair to those who don't use steroids and thus can't "achieve" the same level of body conditioning. I just don't understand how one day makes such a difference. This then leads me to some possible conclusions. One, who cares about the elevated levels as they have no effect on the outcome anyway. Two, the positive test is evidence of some new type of designer drug, or hider drug, and what Floyd ate or drank the previous night allowed the drug to show up. Morever nobody realized said food or drink would allow this drug to show up. Whoops.

What little we do know right now is that the one doping method that gives an athlete immediate advantaage, EPO, Floyd hasn't tested positive for. We also know that most athletes who have undergone this type of charge are later exonerated.


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

jabpn said:


> Instead of questioning Floyd or the testing procedures at this point, why aren't we questioning the descision by those who made the annoucement in the first place. Due to the fact that Floyd is as big a name as he is, and due to the fact he just won the Tour, it should have been kept soley between Floyd and his team until all facts are gathered including the "B" test results. (Did everyone like my runon sentence =] )
> 
> .


In a press statement, the results were put out on the "A" sample, because the lab doing the test has a close collaberaiton with L'Equipe, and would have been leaked anyway. .. finding the link.. brb

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=711872#post711872

trying to find an external link (found)
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/10594.0.html


----------



## BenWA (Aug 11, 2004)

personanlly I thinnk floyd is a bloody stupid old fart who should just suffer from THE HEMORRHOIDS.

no. 


incidentally i've been dringking a bit and i'm not altogether sure waht i,m saying


----------



## mtbikegrrrl (Oct 4, 2005)

My gut also says he didn't do it....

That being said, what I find truly upsetting is the clear "guilty" until proven innocent attitude. I think this whole incident is a situation where all the facts are not yet available, yet many are quick to consider him guilty. Hopefully, as more information is revealed, and the follow-up test completed, Landis will be in the clear.....but, I tend to agree with him that, even if he is cleared, his name will be tarnished for good....and that would be sad. We shall see.....


----------



## mtbikegrrrl (Oct 4, 2005)

Here's an interesting intv on NPR with Velonews editor....."it could be almost anything."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5587194


----------



## PullThrough (Jun 12, 2006)

magnolialover said:


> Why would he risk his good name? Because if you win le Tour, you essentially become a God in the cycling world. And you can write your own ticket for a long time, and make a lot of money, even IF you never win a race again later on down the road. It's just like all professional sports, you win big, you get a big payday.



I think you answered your own question. Unless you were answering someone else's question.


----------



## PseuZQ (Mar 27, 2002)

*Great quote from Floyd's Ma:*

First, she reminds me of that show "Sarah, Plain and Tall," but I digress: 

She said, "I believe God is allowing us to go through this so that Floyd's glory will be greater." 

Oh hayyyulll yeah! 

(heard it on the teevee so if it's not exacly verbatim that's why)


----------



## Belgian biker (Mar 24, 2006)

First comes the news, then the denial, then the acceptance ...
He's seems a fairly nice bloke (contrary to the aso who won 7 times), but he f"$"$d up and he'll have to take responsability for that. This is the 8th or 9th time a rider from de Phonak team gets caught in a couple of years time.
Of course he denies, ... there only one guy as far as I can remember who had the guts to admit he doped himself and added after that he'd have to face the music. He's back in competition since a couple of months. The fact people still like and support him is called honesty.

And what is it you people and picking on the French ? Ever been there? Ever met one in person ?


----------



## dekindy (Jul 7, 2006)

*Radio Interview*

I was driving home last night after a training ride listening to WIBC radio in Indianapolis. They were replaying a Floyd Landis satellite radio interview that was taking callers. This was after the test results had been released and was the only topic of conversation when I was listening. The only thing I had heard previously was a short report on the radio earlier in the day that he had tested positive.

A lady caller asked hime point blank if he had ever taken performance enhancing drugs. His answer was not convincing. He hesitated noticeably and gave a very incoherent answer that ended with, "Well, I am going to say no with the understanding that nobody would believe me. And there you have it." He also said that he thought he had lost the tour and had drank beer and Jack Daniels the evening of the day he bonked.

Why didn't he just say no? The radio commentator made the same comment that I was thinking; that the answer was not very convincing. You nay hear the sound bite and think it sounds bad because it was taken out of context. I heard a lot of the interview prior to that question and it sounded bad in context.

I don't know if he is innocent, but I was certainly not encouraged by his answer. He was much more articulate than that during his Tour interviews.

It may come down to the fact that because of the seemingly insurmountable deficit and the high possibility of not being able to compete after his coming hip surgery that he felt he had nothing to lose by taking something.

I certainly hope not.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

Man, this stuff is killing me.

How about we just wait for all the evidence.

Trying to say that Landis is a great guy and didn't do it doesn't fly either. I like to think I am a great guy and that I would step in front of a bullet to save my mother, wife, or any other family member, or even a stranger, but until that bullet is actually fired, I have no idea what I would do.

I would also like to think that I wouldn't dope to win a race, but given the fame and fortune equated with winning the Tour de France, and a wife that is depending on me so that we can buy a bigger house and have a better life, God only knows what I would do in that situation. Again, I would hope that I would take the honorable road and not dope, but who really knows.

Same goes for Landis. He might be a great guy, and he might not have doped, but can you honestly sit there and say he definitely did not. If any of us found a suitcase with a million dollars cash in it, how many of us would turn it in to the police department's lost and found to see if anybody ever claimed it. I bet we would be sweating over making that decision.

This is a tough one. I would like to think that I watched a drug free race, and that I watched one of the greatest rides of all time, but now I have no idea what happened. I had my suspicions about him drugging after that spectacular ride, but had hoped it wasn't the case. Now, only time and a lot of litigation will tell.

Oh yeah, one last point. How many cyclists accused of doping have ever come right out and said, "Yep, you got me. I am returning all the money I won and please strip me of all the medals and glories I won." I have yet to see that happen. Probably never will. Kind of like all the criminals locked up in jail. They still say they are innocent even after being convicted. That might be the case for a select few, but I doubt it is the case for the majority of them.


----------



## ([[:->= (Sep 8, 2005)

dekindy said:


> I was driving home last night after a training ride listening to WIBC radio in Indianapolis. They were replaying a Floyd Landis satellite radio interview that was taking callers. This was after the test results had been released and was the only topic of conversation when I was listening. The only thing I had heard previously was a short report on the radio earlier in the day that he had tested positive.
> 
> A lady caller asked hime point blank if he had ever taken performance enhancing drugs. His answer was not convincing. He hesitated noticeably and gave a very incoherent answer that ended with, "Well, I am going to say no with the understanding that nobody would believe me. And there you have it." He also said that he thought he had lost the tour and had drank beer and Jack Daniels the evening of the day he bonked.
> 
> ...


But then again has Armstrong ever hesitated or sounded incoherent whenever he has had to answer this same type of question?

IIHIC, the answer is, no.

The point?

If Floyd had pounded the table and said something like, 

"'Too high!? Too high?! Bull****! Maybe if you're some snail sucking lab monkey the levels are too high. But as far as I'm concerned I absolutely did not take or do anything that could any way, shape, or form be considered as cheating."'

Would the COPO be all, "Screw the results. The guy says he's innocent--and he really sounds like he means it--therefore he must be."'? Peroberly not.


----------



## Miles E (Jul 31, 2003)

dekindy said:


> Why didn't he just say no? The radio commentator made the same comment that I was thinking; that the answer was not very convincing.


This makes about as much sense as saying he couldn't have taken steroids because he seems like a nice guy, was raised a Mennonite, etc. In other words, the public's perception of him (either his persona in general or his specific words) has nothing to do with his personal decision to dope or not. I could say that his response is in character for a guy who seems to be very introspective, but at the end of the day that has nothing to do with the fact that he's looking at a failed drug test.

To me neither the implied offense (a one day steriod regimen in the middle of a three week race?) or the "incriminating" test result (apparently a really low ET level) add up, but hopefully this will become clear, one way or the other, in time.


----------



## llama31 (Jan 13, 2006)

fabsroman said:


> Personally, I am pretty convinced that the cycling sport is pretty corrupt. Designer drugs that prevent them from being caught by today's testing procedures, sort of like the steroids that Bonds was taking for major league baseball. I am getting rather disappointed with pro sports in general, and not just cycling. I think Lance has been doping for quite a while, and that it has been overlooked for the most part because of the money and interest that Lance has generated in the sport.
> 
> While I was racing in the 80's, my brothers and sisters slightly knew about Lemond because I would talk about him. However, they know plenty about Lance and I never really talk about Lance with them. Even the French ended up liking Lance. These sports are all about the dollars and cents. Same thing happened with baseball after their strike in the 90's. People didn't like the players much, and about the only thing they had going on was Cal Ripken beating Lou Gerig's record for the number of consecutive games played. They kept playing that up forever and making Ripken a household name.
> 
> ...


I'm new to this forum, so maybe my opinion is uninteresting, but I'll post it anyway. I too think the sport is completely corrupt. I'm disappointed by all this, but not surprised. Where there's smoke, there's fire...that's what I'm starting to believe. There's been too many cases of positive tests, positives tests with strange excuses, anecdotal evidence, shady doctors, criminal investigations. I'm pretty convinced that just about all the good cyclists dope regularly, and they just do it under close medical scrutiny to minimize the chances of getting caught. Granted, my knowledge of the science behind these issues is limited, but this is what I suspect.

That said, I don't really care if they dope and I actually think it should be sanctioned, and managed medically to 1) level the playing field and 2) minimize the risk to the athletes. There are two primary arguments, I think, against doping. One is the safety/health of the athletes, so any sanctioned program has to have that as a primary goal. The other is to maintain the "purity of the sport." I don't really know what that means. These guys are all engineered machines; they're not just tough guys who can weld their own forks like in the old, old days. They use altitude tents, regular blood monitoring to optimize their training, wind tunnels, power meters, all kinds of supplements (many of which may someday be shown to be dangerous). I think we're fooling ourselves if we think there is any "purity to the sport" (or in any sport, for that matter). 

Maybe a sanctioned drug program is ridiculous idea. Maybe guys will still cheat and go beyond what is allowed. Maybe there's really no way to allow these substances in a safe manner. But, if it is possible, i think it would actually lend credibility to the sport because everybody would be using the same stuff and we could more readily believe in a Landis-STage-17 performance. It's something that I think deserves an honest discussion among those who lead and run the sport. To my knowledge, that has not happened.

And, yes, the usual caveats--innocent till proven guilty; the sport should handle these cases more responsibly (i.e., no leaks). But, really, where there is smoke, there's usually fire.


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

ebroil said:


> That's a litte disingenous. Yes, they still have their teams and contracts. No doping control agency took action against them. But they're professional athelets. They only have so many good years, and they only have one Tour de France a year. I think that has to be called punishment. Nevermind the damage done to their reputations.


Exactly. Let's look at the example of Ulrich. Let's assume he's innocent for a moment... do you honestly believe that he wasn't "damaged" by not allowed to start the TdF? 

There is a reason why we follow the doctrine of "innocent until proved guilty"... I understand the standards aren't as high in sporting, but the basic principle is the same.

Furthermore, if the the test if fool-proof, why hasn't it stood up in court? I remember reading that EVERY case where an athlete challenged the findings of this test in court was ruled in favor of the athlete. Given that, can't we all agree that the test is somewhat suspect?


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

dekindy said:


> I was driving home last night after a training ride listening to WIBC radio in Indianapolis. They were replaying a Floyd Landis satellite radio interview that was taking callers. This was after the test results had been released and was the only topic of conversation when I was listening. The only thing I had heard previously was a short report on the radio earlier in the day that he had tested positive.
> 
> A lady caller asked hime point blank if he had ever taken performance enhancing drugs. His answer was not convincing. He hesitated noticeably and gave a very incoherent answer that ended with, "Well, I am going to say no with the understanding that nobody would believe me. And there you have it." He also said that he thought he had lost the tour and had drank beer and Jack Daniels the evening of the day he bonked.
> 
> ...


You can't draw any conclusions from that... I mean heck, Gator Aide is "perfomance enhancing"... training at altitude produces similar effects as taking EPO and is "performance enhancing". Recieveing a massage after a race is "performance enhancing". 

What Floyd is saying is "No one is going to believe me, but regardless of that I'll still say NO". It's not "yes, I did take them but I'll say NO".... It's that he's maintaining his innocence in light of the fact that he's already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

GREAT post.

I would also like to think Landis is innocent, as I liked to think Hamilton is/was innocent. And I will wait for the evidence. Hamilton soloing 90km for victory with a broken collarbone was even better than Landis' ride, IMHO. But even if they are guilty...well, cycling has been a sport of "cheaters" for decades. We live with it, don't we, because we are pretty much powerless to do anything about it...except stop watching.

I think if we start with the assumption that cycling has a long, long history of corruption, that's a good place to begin as fans. Many of the greats like Merckx, Delgado, Anquetil have either tested positive or admitted to doping (whether it was legal or not at the time). As Anquetil said, no one can expect the pros to race "on mineral water alone."

I just wish more "cheaters" would stand up and say, "Do we still dope? YES! Because riding 3,600km around France in the middle of the summer is INSANE! <i>You</i> try it without dope." Then we can have a real discussion.



fabsroman said:


> Man, this stuff is killing me.
> 
> How about we just wait for all the evidence.
> 
> ...


----------



## James OCLV (Jun 4, 2002)

fabsroman said:


> Man, this stuff is killing me.
> 
> How about we just wait for all the evidence.
> 
> ...


It's got nothing to do with whether or not he's a "great guy"... I think that what people are saying is "given his background and what we know of his character, is the guy a likely cheat?"

I think that the answer to that is "no". Furthermore, it simply doesn't make sense... 

Why win the stage knowing that the winner is automatically drug tested and when finding unusual testosterone levels in a testing laboratory is a comparatively easy thing to do?

Landis would have also been tested at least three times previously as race leader, too, and these presumably have been negative as only stage 17 is under discussion.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

jabpn said:


> What little we do know right now is that the one doping method that gives an athlete immediate advantaage, EPO, Floyd hasn't tested positive for. We also know that most athletes who have undergone this type of charge are later exonerated.


This is simply incorrect. EPO stimulates red blood cell production. It takes days if not a week or more for significant amounts of red blood cells to be produced.

There are at least 3 methods we know of that riders used for "immediate" results. Blood transfusions, cortisone injections, and stimulants or some combination of various drugs (eg. Pot Belge).


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

James OCLV said:


> It's got nothing to do with whether or not he's a "great guy"... I think that what people are saying is "given his background and what we know of his character, is the guy a likely cheat?"
> 
> I think that the answer to that is "no". Furthermore, it simply doesn't make sense...
> 
> ...


We don't know Landis. We don't know his character. All we know is what we read in magazines and see on TV. In fact, one could perceive from reading articles that Floyd is immature, unprofessional and likes to snub his nose at convention. Supposedly he drank 13 cappuccinos at one sitting while he was training with US Postal? And this: "I believe that probably cycling would be on the side of pornography."

Also, consider this: He cracked on stage 16. He was 8 minutes down on GC. His Tour was over. He was drinking beer and JD. Then ,maybe someone says to him, "Let's try the dope. You are 8 minutes down, your hip is dying--this might be the <i>last chance you will ever have</i> to win an important bike race." 

I've done many things after a shot of JD that I would not do otherwise. But, seriously, after stage 16 he might have been thinking, "What have I got to lose? If I get caught, I'll deal with it later."

Again, let's wait for the evidence.


----------



## Stud Muzzin (Mar 5, 2006)

team_sheepshead said:


> Also, consider this: He cracked on stage 16. He was 8 minutes down on GC. His Tour was over. He was drinking beer and JD. Then ,maybe someone says to him, "Let's try the dope. You are 8 minutes down, your hip is dying--this might be the <i>last chance you will ever have</i> to win an important bike race."
> 
> I've done many things after a shot of JD that I would not do otherwise. But, seriously, after stage 16 he might have been thinking, "What have I got to lose? If I get caught, I'll deal with it later."
> 
> ...


----------



## desmo13 (Jun 28, 2006)

Stud Muzzin said:


> team_sheepshead said:
> 
> 
> > I've done many things after a shot of JD that I would not do otherwise. But, seriously, after stage 16 he might have been thinking, "What have I got to lose? If I get caught, I'll deal with it later."
> ...


----------



## Stud Muzzin (Mar 5, 2006)

desmo13 said:


> Stud Muzzin said:
> 
> 
> > team_sheepshead said:
> ...


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

The first thing that alcohol does is impair judgment. That is the judgment used to say, "No, I will not dope."

Also, how about if somebody (i.e., a doping doctor) approached him and said I have just the thing for you because it is undetectable. A lot of these guys get away with doping because the stuff they use is not detectable by modern methods. When cyclists were first using EPO, there wasn't much of a way to test for it, so most of them got away with it. As test procedures advance, people get caught here and there.

Who knows if Landis actually did it, and if he did do it, who knows exactly why he did it. As far as his statement that he was drinking after stage 16, that shows a complete lack of professionalism. Who drinks the night before a mountain stage in the Alps? I doubt I would be drinking then.


----------



## jankty (Sep 27, 2004)

*Picking on the French?*



Belgian biker said:


> ......
> And what is it you people and picking on the French ? Ever been there? Ever met one in person ?


Yeah, I've been there, met them and asked them to shower. Look we pick on them cuz of their attitudes towards the USA and others in general. No biggie...and personally I was very inspired by Desell's ride this year. He was a great fighter and didn't whine like Voekler. The foreign posters get upset when the American's make jokes on the French, well polls like this (link) are why we think they deserve it sometimes. You don't hear us bashing the Aussie or the Brits now do you!

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247


----------



## NeedhamDave (May 17, 2004)

*I am sick of this*

The worst thing about all this is the ambiguity. How can a bunch of riders be disqualified from the Tour because of "associations" with some bad doctor in Spain? Then we have news stories about how Floyd is a cheater because his testosterone levels were too high. Then people start trying to figure out what that means...could it be natural? Maybe it could be caused by x, y, z....Same deal with Tyler Hamilton...will that ever be 100% resolved and who will care by then?

My gut feeling is that the testing science is not reliable enough to establish guilt. OK, if they draw a blood sample of a motorist and find .3% alcohol, then it is safe to say that person is intoxicated. But what does it mean when we are talking about arbitrary thresholds of naturally-occurring hormones that are evaluated without any reference to an individual's baseline? How can they be saying that now they need to go back and figure out if maybe Floyd has naturally-high testosterone? That should have been known before a test was done in a race!

To those who believe we need to "crack down" and "clean up" the sport...if the means to do that is via complicated, ambiguous, unreproducible tests that require a Ph.D. in microbiology to understand...I think it actually just discredits things even more. If I were an athlete, competing under these conditions...I would reach the conclusion that there is a pretty good chance I'm going to be wrongly convicted anyway, so either I give up on the sport, compete fairly, knowing that I'll never be able to prove it, or, cheat, and hope I don't get caught.

If you are going to have tests that have the effect of completely discrediting a sport's premiere event and ruin someone's career, the tests should be rock solid, with no room for interpretation or defense. If the sophistication of cheating is so complex that such tests cannot be devised, then let's just accept it and move on until a real test can be proven.


----------



## Art853 (May 30, 2003)

Floyd’s case and Hamilton’s case are so dissimilar in terms of the doping and testing details it makes any comparison of them moot.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Art853 said:


> Floyd’s case and Hamilton’s case are so dissimilar in terms of the doping and testing details it makes any comparison of them moot.


I don't think we know that yet, do we? Assuming his B comes back positive he's left with demonstrating that either the test is detecting something that isn't really there (unlikely) or that natural explanations account for the test result. This is exactly the situation Hamilton found himself in.


----------



## Art853 (May 30, 2003)

I think Floyd is innocent of the doping charges.

Here are a few reasons, aside from what appears to be an upstanding character.

Taking steroids doesn’t make sense 
(see conversation with Dr. Wadler on the ESPN interview).
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/tdf2006/news/story?id=2531677

“But most steroids are given in cycles [6-12 weeks] and in context of working out in a gym with weights. It makes no sense to me why an athlete would take testosterone the day of a race when it doesn't work that way. It doesn't make sense in terms of the pharmacology of the drug, and it really doesn't have the attributes that would be attractive to a cyclist -- particularly one running the risk of violating anti-doping regulations.”

Landis was tested at least six times during the TdF and just one of those times is suspect. 

A few quotes from the NYT article “Testing Benefits and Levels of Testosterone is Difficult” July 28, 2006. 

Dr. Shalender Bhasin, a leading testosterone researcher at Boston University Medical Center, said “No one has been able to show clearly that testosterone improves endurance.” Using testosterone to increase aggressiveness and improve training intensity is “folklore” according to Dr. Bhasin. 


Another issue is the T/E ratio, which has now been lowered from the past standard.

“Dr. Timothy Foster, an endocrinologist and sports-medicine specialist at Boston University Medical Center, said even the six-to-one ratio is within a range that could be found naturally in many men. Dr. Bhasin agreed. “People can have high ratios without abuse.”

The testing procedure also deserves scrutiny:

The actual testing method “is a real bugaboo,” said Dr. John McKinlay, the senior vice president and chief scientist at the New England Research Institute.

As Landis said about the T:E test, and I have not seen it refuted, "In hundreds of cases, no one's ever lost one.”

It doesn’t sound like this test has held up to scrutiny and probably even less so with the tighter tolerances being used. For sure more details are needed on why the test is flawed.

Finally too little is known about how an individual’s testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio is affected by things such as cortisone or thyroid medication, or even different foods. Then you add a hard physical effort topped with some euphoria into the mix.

I hope Landis is able to clear his name, fix his hip, and keep racing.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Art853 said:


> Taking steroids doesn’t make sense
> QUOTE]
> 
> Yet we know from previous doping cases that riders take it, so where exactly does that leave the logical arguement that it doesn't make sense?
> ...


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

Exactly J's, Meez twozzz. Though my wife would never go for a phloid poster over the fireplace.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*But!!*



magnolialover said:


> Well, lynch mobs didn't wait for evidence, there are many of us here who are saying that we are waiting for all of the results to come in.
> 
> The tests have been around for a long time. The tests themselves are not flawed, but it is possible that the test protocols were not properly followed. They have had tests for testosterone since the mid 60's, and have refined it through the years. Again, just like the blood doping testing brouhaha from the Hamilton case, when folks were saying that it was a bad test, if it is so bad, and so flawed; how come more people are flunking for testosterone? If the testing is so bad, and so flawed, there should be false positives all over the place, but alas, they're not.
> 
> Do you know Landis? If you do know him, then yes, you can equivocally state that he's not a moron, but we all don't know him, and we don't know if he's stupid enough to dope or not. I hope not. But we'll have to wait and see what the results are.


THEY REALLY WERE WITCHES, I CAN PROVE IT!!!! 

wait...no they weren't....we killed them for nothing...:mad2:


----------



## Gripped (Nov 27, 2002)

magnolialover said:


> Folks, including myself, don't know if the tests are flawed. So far, we have a statement from Landis saying that the tests are flawed. Last I knew, he wasn't a scientist or a doctor or a researcher in the field of drug testing and detection.


Mags, I've posted this stuff in a couple other threads but since this one is getting a lot of traffic, I'll consolidate here.

First, here's the article you need to read about flawed testing. I've only seen the abstract but the article is available at a price.

http://www.jatox.com/abstracts/2000/march/102-vandekerk.html



> Published: Journal of Analytical Toxicology, Volume 24, Number 2, March, pp.102-115
> 
> Evaluation of Testosterone/Epitestosterone Ratio Influential Factors as Determined in Doping Analysis
> D.H. van de Kerkhof1, D. de Boer1,2, J.H.H. Thijssen1,3, and R.A.A. Maes1
> ...


Next, even if the B sample comes back positive and the testing is spot on, there is still analysis to be done.

Landis was tested 6 times during the tour (maybe more if he were one of the random riders tested). He was in Yellow after stages 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20. The raw testosterone and epitestosterone data along with the T/E ratio should be plotted. A qualified statistician should look at the data and draw some conclusions. Some things I'd be looking for would be:

1) Relatively level amounts of testosterone over all six samples would imply that Landis didn't dope.

2) Levels of test, epitest and T/E that are out of whack on the stage 17 sample would imply sample tampering.

3) A higher level of test (but within normal variation) and a lower level of epi (but within normal variation) that put the T/E ration over the top would imply Landis didn't dope.

4) "Normal" looking samples for stages 11 and 15 but a marked rise in testosterone for the stage 17 sample then testosterone levels in the subsequent samples that would indicate doping (I assume an endicrineologist would be able to assist in this analysis).

While there are other schenarios, I think those four are the most likely. The fourth would be evidence (but not proof) that Landis doped previous to stage 17.


----------



## needforspeedsteve (Sep 23, 2004)

*We may never know the real truth...*

The bottom line is this - the only person who will ever know for sure if Landis cheated is Landis himself. I believe him to be innocent, and will only believe he is guilty if he admits to it. Lab tests all have statistical errors related to them, and that is assuming they are performed properly. If the B sample comes up negative, then the test itself will get scrutinized. If it comes up positive, then we will have the test results VS the word of Landis.

Remember, Landis could fail the B test and still not be cheating (which is what he is saying today). Professional cyclists do no fit the physological norms of society. They have trained themselves into such a state of conditioning that it would not be surprising that their bodies produce abnormally high levels of testosterone, red blood cells, etc. Back in the 80's the boxer Roberto Duran was almost not allowed to participate in a fight because the pre-fight doctor who examined him said he had an enlarged heart. Of course he had an enlarged heart. But it wasn't due to disease, which is what usually causes this condition in the normal population. It was do to his years of training. Roberto Duran (along with most other professional athletes) did not fit the "norm" . In the end he was cleared to fight. I am hoping the same result will occur with Landis. Of course, on top of this, he also has to deal with his come back from hip replacement surgery later this year...but if there is anyone out there who can pull that off, it is Floyd. 

I believe he will be cleared, come back from hip surgery, and kick eveyone's a** in next year's Tour. He will definitely have something to prove to people, and this will provide his motivation.


And I will close with what was going through my mind during Stage 17 - 
RIDE FLOYD RIDE!!!!!


----------



## Buckman (Jul 6, 2005)

Belgian biker said:


> First comes the news, then the denial, then the acceptance ...
> He's seems a fairly nice bloke (contrary to the aso who won 7 times), but he f"$"$d up and he'll have to take responsability for that. This is the 8th or 9th time a rider from de Phonak team gets caught in a couple of years time.
> Of course he denies, ... there only one guy as far as I can remember who had the guts to admit he doped himself and added after that he'd have to face the music. He's back in competition since a couple of months. The fact people still like and support him is called honesty.
> 
> And what is it you people and picking on the French ? Ever been there? Ever met one in person ?


I spent 4 weeks cycling through France back during the WC in '82 (went through Belgium too). Beautiful country, fabulous back roads, and, without exception, friendly nice people. France is paradise for cycling IMO.


----------



## Art853 (May 30, 2003)

The information I provided above supports my statement of steroids not making sense. 

Of all the methods cited by Dr. Moosburger only one is relevant to Landis’ case. The testosterone patch. Apparently Dr. Moosburger claims it improves performance but without being detected by doping controls. 

This leads to many questions:

Does this make sense? How does it put testosterone into the body without changing the levels of testosterone and hence violating doping controls? How does it improve performance with such a low level of testosterone that it is undetectable? This is odd given that other researchers were not able to find improved performance with apparently higher levels. If there is evidence the testosterone patch works, that’s publishable. Was Dr. Moosburger’s research published in major peer reviewed journals? 

Do cyclists pay money for this treatment? Who provides it? Is there a conflict of interest in stating its effectiveness?

When Dr. Bhasin said “No one has been able to show clearly that testosterone improves endurance” we can infer he is referring to respected researchers publishing in peer reviewed journals. 

Why would Dr. Moosburger have more credibility than a Doctor who is referred to as “a leading testosterone researcher” at Boston University Medical Center and his peers at other centers who have published in the literature? Because Dr. Moosburger has “looked after” at least one professional cyclist?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Your logic is fundamentally flawed for two reasons. 1) You assume the dope tests are sensitive enough to catch any doping use. They are not. 2) You assume a cyclist would only take something that has been "scientifically" shown to improve performance. Why would that be the case, they'll take whatever they think works.

One would presume from the good doctor's quotes that the reason he knows you can wear a testosterone patch on your nuts for 6 hours and not trip a postive test is because he's had athletes do just that. The reason he probably knows it improves recovery is because the athletes say so. They may be mistaken but that doesn't mean they don't believe it and willing to do it.


----------



## txzen (Apr 6, 2005)

Art853 said:


> As Landis said about the T:E test, and I have not seen it refuted, "In hundreds of cases, no one's ever lost one.”


I want to believe Floyd. I truly do. But how does this statement jive with the fact that Sascha Unweider of Phonak was found to have elevated testosterone earlier this year, and after his B sample came back positive was sacked?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

txzen said:


> I want to believe Floyd. I truly do. But how does this statement jive with the fact that Sascha Unweider of Phonak was found to have elevated testosterone earlier this year, and after his B sample came back positive was sacked?


People are reporting on other newsgroup that this isn't an accurate statement and that there are athletes who have challenged the test unsuccessfully.


----------



## RocketDog (Apr 9, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> 2) You assume a cyclist would only take something that has been "scientifically" shown to improve performance. Why would that be the case, they'll take whatever they think works.QUOTE]
> 
> Given the level of sophistication I suspect is present in pro cycling doping programs, they likely know precisely what works. I would guess they know better than those performing the testing and those speculating how one might gain from taking certain drugs.


----------



## funknuggets (Feb 4, 2004)

Im of the belief that the cycling gods in fear that cycling would wane in popularity following the tour, got all the news organizations, cycling websites and magazines together and planned this all, simply in order to bump up the number of hits on their websites, increased sales of their magazines, etc, allowing them to charge more to their advertisers, and make the movie version much more presentable when he was found to be innocent.

Thats the media for you. Its all a big ploy and you all are suckers for buying into it.

Cyclesport, Velonews, Eurosport, Cyclingnews, ROAD, Bicycling, and all the other cycling media are all laughing all the way to the bank.

Landis is dangling out there so the media can make a few bucks. They even told Phonak beforehand, thats why they were pulling their support.


----------



## Miles E (Jul 31, 2003)

RocketDog said:


> Given the level of sophistication I suspect is present in pro cycling doping programs, they likely know precisely what works.


Moreover, we're not talking about harmless old wive's tales, but rather a career defining moment which would demand calculated decision making. If riders are taking something that can cost them their career they better by darn sure that it's worth the risk. Of course this does leave the questions of (a) why they test for it, and (b) why riders fail these test and are unsuccessful on appeal. 

The main question I see (assuming his B sample also fails) is has it been determined if his testosterone level (not ratio) was even elevated, or was his epitestosterone just really low?


----------



## Live Steam (Feb 4, 2004)

Good post. I have had similar thoughts about letting them compete using what ever they can as an aid. We never know who slips throught he cracks, regarding doping, so we never know if the results are 'pure'. Let tham have a it. They are only risking their own lives. Just like riding without a helmet, doping is a choice. So it may come down to who has the best Doc, but that still may be the case regardless.


----------



## Brick Tamland (Mar 31, 2006)

*This just in...*

Cut and pasted from somewhere's on the interwebs. An exerpt from today's press conference, I believe:

"_Only one other time during the conference call did Landis react angrily, and that came when he criticized reporters for confronting his parents in Farmersville, Pa. 

“I can handle anything,” Landis said. “I don't expect sympathy. But my mom's a saint. Please, leave her alone.” 

Arlene Landis said her son called her yesterday and told her he did nothing wrong. 

Asked if he's ever lied to his mother, Landis said, “I don't think anybody's ever lied to my mom.” _


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

funk - lay off the cocaine, it isn't helping your paranoia - and go on a vacation to some place with alot of sun!


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Of course Floyd had elevated testosterone levels - he is an American!


----------



## Sasquatch (Feb 3, 2004)

this is so sad. if Floyd is doping...it's sad. I, for one, hope Floyd proves his innocence. Call me gullible or naive, but I believe him.


----------



## snapdragen (Jan 28, 2004)

I believe him too. I said elsewhere, until he stands up and says "Yes, I knowingly used banned substances" I will continue to believe him.


----------

