# Breaking News: Landis *guilty*



## TrekDaddy (Sep 20, 2007)

Off the wire 8 mins ago. Dont know what to think at this point.


----------



## My Own Private Idaho (Aug 14, 2007)

Link please.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> Link please.


http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/7247012?MSNHPHMA


----------



## TrekDaddy (Sep 20, 2007)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> Link please.



http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_yl...grcF?slug=ap-landisdecision&prov=ap&type=lgns


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

TrekDaddy said:


> Off the wire 8 mins ago. Dont know what to think at this point.


The panel also found that the first testosterone test was not done according to WADA rules. That can't make the LNDD defenders here happy.

Some quotes from the findings: 

"If such practises continue, it may well be that in the future, an error like this could result in the dismissal" of a positive finding by the lab.

"Also, the T-E ratio test is acknowledged as a simple test to run. The IRMS test is universally acknowledged as a very complicated test to run, requiring much skill. If the LNDD couldn't get the T-E ratio test right, how can a person have any confidence that LNDD got the much more complicated IRMS test correct?"


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> That can't make the LNDD defenders here happy.


Did anyone here really defend the LNDD? They clearly have problems.

From the beginning I cautioned "supporters" that it would require a gross violation of protocol to get the case thrown out and that the onus was now on Landis to prove that he didn't take the T. Remember he had to beat both the T/E test and the carbon isotope test.

Oh well, on to CAS.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> The panel also found that the first testosterone test was not done according to WADA rules. That can't make the LNDD defenders here happy.
> 
> Some quotes from the findings:
> 
> ...


So even with the f*ck-ups the bottom line is they thought Landis doped? Imagine how guilty he would have looked if the LNDD wasn't incompetent


----------



## Chompers (Feb 3, 2004)

So who won the 2006 TdF then?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Oh well, on to CAS.



didnt he say, or at least imply, in that NYT piece that he wasn't going to appeal? thought he did but maybe I misread the quote.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Chompers said:


> So who won the 2006 TdF then?


I think you did.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Did anyone here really defend the LNDD? They clearly have problems.


Yes.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=102283
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=95515
etc.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Chompers said:


> So who won the 2006 TdF then?


oscar "big sal(butamol)" pereiro


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

I hear the fat lady singing off in the distance and Floyd is still hawking his defense fund crap on ebay. I hope we don't go down the same road as Tyler. Let it end please.


----------



## sellsworth (Apr 6, 2006)

Chompers said:


> So who won the 2006 TdF then?


I read not long ago that they may not declare a winner because of lingering concern with Óscar Pereiro being involved with Puerto. Otherwise it's Pereiro for sure.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Is anyone really suprised? I mean really.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> So even with the f*ck-ups the bottom line is they thought Landis doped? Imagine how guilty he would have looked if the LNDD wasn't incompetent


That's true. I'm on record as saying that I hope he did dope but he gets away with it because of the lab incompetence. Letting the big one get away is the only result that is likely to cause changes in the system. It's nice that the panel said LNDD broke the rules, but it's just a slap on the wrist. It's not the crushing blow I was hoping for. Didn't they stop doing that test anyway in the TDF and go directly to the IRMS? I'm sure LNDD feels more vindicated than ashamed.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Damn this sucks. I mean, I didn't think he was or wasn't guilty but it still sucks nonetheless..


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

It doesn't suck at all. Cleaning up the dirt is good. What the dopers have done has put the sport in jeopardy...Gerolsteiner, Discovery, HealthNet, Kodak, etc.

Floyd is guilty...good and goodbye.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

blackhat said:


> didnt he say, or at least imply, in that NYT piece that he wasn't going to appeal?


I don't understand. I thought it was about changing the system, defending the right's of athletes? How can he just drop it?

Prediction if it goes to CAS: 3 - 0 against Landis.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

The real question is, what color tie does Floyd wear now?


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I don't understand. I thought it was about changing the system, defending the right's of athletes? How can he just drop it?
> 
> Prediction if it goes to CAS: 3 - 0 against Landis.


the FFF does lose some cred, I guess, if he packs it in. the quote from the nyt piece is non commital enough that neither action would defy it. from the times:

<i>“If I was a betting man, I probably wouldn't bet on myself to win,” he said. If he lost, he figured he would probably appeal the decision to the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport, though just the thought of having to raise more money to defend himself left him weary. Besides, no American athlete who appealed to the Swiss court has ever managed to overturn a verdict. “As much as I don't like to back down from a fight, I've got to decide if it matters,” Landis told me. “And it might just not matter enough.”</i>

I don't see how he wins there either. If he knows where the bodies are buried, and he must, he should start talking like JJ and basso did and maybe knock that 2 yrs down to 1.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

blackhat said:


> I don't see how he wins there either. If he knows where the bodies are buried, and he must, he should start talking like JJ and basso did and maybe knock that 2 yrs down to 1.


Too late now. He's gone so far down the Hamilton path that there is no return. Imagine the let down to all the people who naively supported him? The lies must go on.


----------



## rockstar2083 (Aug 30, 2005)

The real question I have is were Floyd and his doctors dumb enough to take the testosterone, took too much or did the testosterone come from a blood transfusion? I can't see them saying let's take some testosterone, you won't get caught if we keep the dose low or mask it with something. I'm not saying he didn't take it, just wondering how they thought they could keep it from getting picked up or did he get it by mistake because he was taking testosterone when he pulled his blood for his later transfusion.


----------



## RickyRitalin (Dec 16, 2005)

SI gives a fairly good synopsis of the story and its issues: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/09/20/bc.cyc.landisdecision.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

Quite frankly, this case has left me scratching my head with respect to why he would dope (testostrerone? - not a great one time performance enhancer <in or out of bed> as many studies have shown), why the chain of custody is so sloppy (no wonder why pepole don't drive French manufactured cars), and why the arbitration allowed so many liberties to be taken with respect to jurisprudence.

Did Floyd apply the "Clear"? - most likely although a small doubt lingers. Will this ruling change how cycling does its testing? - the sport can only hope so though probably not if the French have anything to say about it.


----------



## daneil (Jun 25, 2002)

*Pereiro*



Chompers said:


> So who won the 2006 TdF then?


_
UCI president Pat McQuaid spoke with Cyclingnews about the decision Thursday afternoon. "It is true, we have been on to USADA and others about it," McQuaid said. "We can confirm that Pereiro will be the winner of the 2006 Tour de France, and that Floyd Landis will get a two year ban." There has been no official statement on the start date of the ban, but McQuaid speculated it would run from the end of the 2006 Tour._
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/sep07/sep21news


----------



## ethebull (May 30, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> So even with the f*ck-ups the bottom line is they thought Landis doped? Imagine how guilty he would have looked if the LNDD wasn't incompetent


Why did WASA/USADA choose to use the LNDD in testing the remaining B samples? They have several labs that could have done the testing. Just one of many idiotic moves that brings into question their credibility. They didn't play by the rules. They didn't act in good faith. The case should have been thrown out due to incompetence. 

Did Landis dope? I have no idea. Did the anti-doping bodies get it right? I have no idea. The system needs a major overhaul.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

rockstar2083 said:


> The real question I have is were Floyd and his doctors dumb enough to take the testosterone, took too much or did the testosterone come from a blood transfusion?


Dumb? Testosterone appears to be SOP with these guys, they're only catching them now because they started doing testing at unexpected times.

The real question is what threw off his ratio (lowered his epitestosterone?) on the day in question? Floyd should have been good to go. Did they do the carbon isotope test on his negative samples from the other days around his positive?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

ethebull said:


> Why did WASA/USADA choose to use the LNDD in testing the remaining B samples?


SOP is for the same lab to do the B test as the A test.


----------



## My Own Private Idaho (Aug 14, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Dumb? Testosterone appears to be SOP with these guys, they're only catching them now because they started doing testing at unexpected times.


Landis knew that if he won the stage he would be tested. That's SOP, as far as I know.

The lab screwed up. I don't know if Landis doped or not; I tend to think he probably did. But I think every Grand Tour winner probably doped, so perhaps I don't count.

I think the riders are going to have to unionize to get doping and arbitration under control. I want a clean sport, but the the powers that be right now aren't going to get it there.


----------



## ethebull (May 30, 2007)

Dwayne Barry said:


> SOP is for the same lab to do the B test as the A test.


Like I said, the system is flawed.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> SOP is for the same lab to do the B test as the A test.


For this very reason Mayo tests this year are done in *3 *different labs (1 for A- and 2 for B-samples).


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

al0 said:


> For this very reason Mayo tests this year are done in *3 *different labs (1 for A- and 2 for B-samples).


And it's a big deal because this is not how it has been done in the past. Is Mayo the only case? A in one place and B in another, and then there appears some confusion over whether there is a second B test or a review of the results by another lab?


----------



## Steve D (Mar 1, 2002)

*Ruling found here:*

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/Landis Final (20-09-07) (3).pdf


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> Landis knew that if he won the stage he would be tested. That's SOP, as far as I know.


Right. Landis should have been fine, it was an expected test. The question is how did Landis screw up or what thru off his physiology so that he was suddenly positive.

I was referring to the other guys like Sinkewicz that they are catching with OOC tests.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

*Finally, a little sanity*

I don't think it sucks at all. What sucked was this ongoing pathetic soap opera of an athlete who just didn't get it that cheating is wrong, and the sad and pathetic denial that ensued.

Also, Floyd is quoted in his press release as saying that the decision is "a blow to athletes and cyclists everywhere". I think what he meant to say was "a blow to athletes and cyclists who lie and cheat everywhere". 

BTW, do you think that his book will be going on sale soon?


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*Kangaroo Court?*

What a BS ruling.



> In its 84-page decision, the majority found the initial screening test to measure Landis' testosterone levels — the testosterone-to-epitestosterone test — was not done according to World Anti-Doping Agency rules.





> Although the panel rejected Landis' argument of a "conspiracy" at the Chatenay-Malabry lab, it did find areas of concern. They dealt with chain of command in controlling the urine sample, the way the tests were run on the machine, the way the machine was prepared and the "forensic corrections" done on the lab paperwork.
> 
> "... the Panel finds that the practises of the Lab in training its employees appears to lack the vigor the Panel would expect in the circumstances given the enormous consequences to athletes" of an adverse analytical finding, the decision said.





> "If such practises continue, it may well be that in the future, an error like this could result in the dismissal" of a positive finding by the lab.





> "In many instances, Mr. Landis sustained his burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt," Campbell wrote. "The documents supplied by LNDD are so filled with errors that they do not support an Adverse Analytical Finding. Mr. Landis should be found innocent."





> And in at least one respect, Landis, who spent an estimated $2 million on his defense, was exonerated because the panel dismissed the T-E test.





> "Also, the T-E ratio test is acknowledged as a simple test to run. The IRMS test is universally acknowledged as a very complicated test to run, requiring much skill. If the LNDD couldn't get the T-E ratio test right, how can a person have any confidence that LNDD got the much more complicated IRMS test correct?"


What a joke. 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyjDmlUh8XW7t59IMnHMN3pg7FmA


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> And it's a big deal because this is not how it has been done in the past. Is Mayo the only case? A in one place and B in another, and then there appears some confusion over whether there is a second B test or a review of the results by another lab?


cyclingnews have clearly stated that there are 2 separate tests of B-sample in Mayo case.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

*so who wins*

as someone mentioned earlier - do they give the title to oscar?

how does it look if they strip one doper of the title, only to give it to a guy is currently under investigation for doping and might end up getting banned as well.

this might be more fun to watch than the landis fiasco.

maybe they'll give it to Evans, so he can realize his dream of winning a race without ever doing anything to win it. we could coin the term "bureaucratic drafting."

or maybe the french will decide that the french were the only clean riders in the peloton, and give the title to Moreau?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Who won the 1996 Tour? They removed Riis as winner, but didn't move anyone else up into first place. First place is vacant.


----------



## Fignon's Barber (Mar 2, 2004)

RickyRitalin said:


> Quite frankly, this case has left me scratching my head with respect to why he would dope (testostrerone? - not a great one time performance enhancer <in or out of bed> as many studies have shown)




Easy to give a reason. Floyd had a blood transfusion, and this new blood had trace elements of testo ratio imbalance. Maybe because it was hurried, since he hadn't , obviously, planned to crumble on the previous days stage. In his defense, it probably is hard to conduct proper lab protocol in the back alleys of a grand tour these days.


----------



## biker_boy (Sep 10, 2002)

If you read the decision, the 2 panelists on the majority acknowledged that the LNDD used flawed procedures to get the original T:E ratio. Regardless, the IMRS testing showed synthetic testosterone. 

He was acquitted on the high T:E ratio.

He's guilty of having used synthetic testosterone.

He's a doper. I've met him, he's cool. He's also a liar and a cheat. I'm horribly disappointed.


----------



## RickyRitalin (Dec 16, 2005)

Fignon's Barber said:


> Easy to give a reason. Floyd had a blood transfusion, and this new blood had trace elements of testo ratio imbalance. Maybe because it was hurried, since he hadn't , obviously, planned to crumble on the previous days stage. In his defense, it probably is hard to conduct proper lab protocol in the back alleys of a grand tour these days.


It would seem to me that the lab would catch an exogenous homologous blood transfusion without having to resort to a testosterone marker for backup. The only way to "mask" a transfusion is to receive an autologous tranfusion. The shelf life of autologous blood is somewhere between 30-60 days (less without preservatives which would leave markers). He would have to have increased exogenous testosterone when the blood was harvested, which would put him in the range of the Dauphine and he was tested then. Therefore, I don't think he blood doped.
Rather, I think there is some misconception that testosterone improves performance immediately amongst the less learned athletes. Perhaps he had a misconception the night of his disaster that he had to do something.
The only other possibility is that the sample was tampered with during the chain of custody (conspiracy theory). I think this is the only way he can argue (with a brick wall being the onnly thing that will listen) about the results if he continues to proclaim his innocence. So sad that it makes me puke.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*so they throw out the T-E test*



BikinCO said:


> What a BS ruling.
> 
> What a joke.
> 
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyjDmlUh8XW7t59IMnHMN3pg7FmA


tell the lab 'your testing protocol suckx'

tell them they screwed the simpler T-E test but then say, even though you show signs of a master clusterf on these simpler tests, we're gonna trust the results of your IMRS?

and convict the guy?

sounds to me like they are trying to save face

I don't care whether he did or didn't. I do care that this lab is still in business.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*The important thing is*



atpjunkie said:


> tell the lab 'your testing protocol suckx'
> 
> tell them they screwed the simpler T-E test but then say, even though you show signs of a master clusterf on these simpler tests, we're gonna trust the results of your IMRS?
> 
> ...


That USADA is undefeated.:frown2:


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> tell them they screwed the simpler T-E test but then say, even though you show signs of a master clusterf on these simpler tests, we're gonna trust the results of your IMRS?
> 
> and convict the guy?
> 
> sounds to me like they are trying to save face


No they followed the rules. The onus is on Landis to specifically show that the IMRS test was flawed. Can't just argue they were sloppy there, so they may have been sloppy here as well. Landis had to show they were sloppy in both cases, which he apparently did not.


----------



## svend (Jul 18, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> tell the lab 'your testing protocol suckx'
> 
> tell them they screwed the simpler T-E test but then say, even though you show signs of a master clusterf on these simpler tests, we're gonna trust the results of your IMRS?
> 
> ...


yep....shiit lab is still in business....

score one for the French, they finally won one....


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*This is acceptable to you*



Dwayne Barry said:


> No they followed the rules. The onus is on Landis to specifically show that the IMRS test was flawed. Can't just argue they were sloppy there, so they may have been sloppy here as well. Landis had to show they were sloppy in both cases, which he apparently did not.





> 21. Having an impeccable chain of custody is necessary to “ensure that the urine tested suffered no contamination, tampering, or mislabeling.”29 “On request the laboratory must be able to give exact documentation on details such as where a certain sample was located at a given time and the identity of the person handling the sample at the time in question.”30 The ISL 3.2 defines Laboratory Internal Chain of Custody as follows:
> Documentation of the sequence of Persons in possession of the Sample and any
> portions of the Sample taken for Testing. [Comment: Laboratory Internal Chain of Custody is generally documented by a written record of the date, location, action taken, and the individual performing an action with a Sample or Aliquot.]31
> 
> ...


If so, why?


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

Sad, just sad is all.


----------



## 2 packs a day (Sep 17, 2007)

*He is from Pennsylvania*

We have a saying here in Lancaster County. We refer to people like Floyd as a "Dumb Dutchmen" It's an old Pa Dutch saying.

Floyd should have saved his money, just admitted his guilt and he probably would have had a Slipstream contract by mid 2008 season. David Millar does.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

BikinCO said:


> If so, why?


No they are not.


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2007)

I have to hand it to Landis. 

Even as the ship goes, down he is still steadfast at the tiller with his consistant lies and overblown rhetoric.


----------



## BikinCO (Feb 17, 2004)

*So you agree*



Dwayne Barry said:


> No they are not.


That their irms testing was sloppy?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

RickyRitalin said:


> It would seem to me that the lab would catch an exogenous homologous blood transfusion...


Well there seems to be some question as to whether these tests were being done for the TdF until this year when they nailed Vino. I can't recall reading anything about Landis having this test on a sample from the Tour around the time of his failed testosterone test.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

BikinCO said:


> That their irms testing was sloppy?


I don't know I've not read the ruling yet. Doesn't matter aynway, the one arbitrator that mattered didn't believe it was sloppy enough to invalidate the findings whereas he (did all 3 agree on this) did for the T/E ratio test, right?

If it goes to CAS, I'm betting 3 - 0 uphold the positive.


----------



## karategirl (Aug 27, 2006)

Chompers said:


> So who won the 2006 TdF then?


 Oscar Periero will win, pending doping investigation. If he is found to have doped, they will go the third place finisher and re-test his samples. They will continue to go through the roster until they finally find someone in the 2006 tour who was clean. If everyone was positive, they will give it to the frenchman with the highest finish.


----------



## flyboy50 (Mar 13, 2007)

I don't know if he doped or not (I think he probably did not) but nothing should have been concluded from that sheety evidence. The system needs a major overhaul, and that french lab either needs to be shut down or gutted. This is such bs.


----------

