Landis Maintains Innocence
Floyd Landis responded to the positive result of sample B by maintaining his innocence (link).
Howard Jacobs, Landis' attorney, said,
Howard Jacobs, Landis' attorney, said,
At this point in time, I am waiting to receive the full laboratory documentation for the “B” test. In consultation with some of the leading medical and scientific experts, we will prove that Floyd Landis’s victory in the 2006 Tour de France was not aided in any respect by the use of any banned substances[...].
posted by Patrick Herron at 9:46 AM
7 Comments:
For what it's worth, previous to this year's TDF I neither knew nor cared about the tour. But earlier this year I started riding my Raleigh hybrid to work everyday and after reading the article in the nytimes in which detailed the hip problem in depth, I became a Floyd Landis fan. I was heartbroken after stage 16, and just blown away by his comments after his success in 17- he just came off as a true class act. Anyway, since the test results have begun to come back I've hardly wavered from my knowledge (some would call it faith) that he is innocent. While I'm no expert on cycling, what happened doesn't add up. It seems most press have little to no understanding of cycling, doping, testing, or Landis. In their mind all cyclists are doping, all tests are 100% perfect, and Landis was a blip on the news radar, one that was not as compelling as Mel Gibson. On ESPN.com you can find video commentary by John Eustice, compellingly details all the problems with the case thus far.
I'm rambling, but am I naive to 1) believe Floyd is telling the truth, which why his defense has been so lacking thus far?
2) Be astounded that the UCI and the lab have leaked so much?
3) Expect the media to treat Landis as a human being that deserves respect?
Here's the lionk to the Eustice video...it should appear on the right hand side
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2539409
What I don't understand is that everyone suddenly doubts how incredible of a performance Landis' was at stage 17. Regardless of low testosterone doage ot not, that was a performance of the ages. If Western Civilization ever gets over its silly puritanism it might be able to see the greatness of that one ride. It might be able to see that Barry Bonds was a great baseball player. And it might be able to see the sort of means by which entire populaces in pseudo-democratic cultures are manipulated into mental servitude by the ruling class. This is, as they say, bigger than the both of us.
I have to agree with that. Testosterone enhancement or no, that ride was incredible.
In other words, I doubt that had I had some kind of similar drug treatment that I could have pulled a ride like that off, and I doubt many if anyone else could have either. It took more than a chemical enhancement to pull that off.
I admit, I'm pretty well disappointed that the evidence is so heavy against him and I would love to see these doping charges stop being a problem, but this does not diminish my admiration for Floyd. I just remember that he pulled many big rides this year, Stage 17 blew me away, and all that while his hip was in agony.
Oh, and thanks Free Floyd. I appreciate what you're doing here. I'm one of those clueless sorts that doesn't know the science behind it all and don't have a lot of time to go search it out. Thank you.
I have been reading this blog since the beginning and wanted to first off say thanks for all of the information. Despite the title of the blog, I find this to be a pretty unbiased representation of information. Anyway, I completely agree with the previous comments but also wanted to add one other thing - whether or not any of these top cyclists are infact doping, the fact remains that they still train harder than any of us could dream of. The mental stamina required is almost superhuman and doping isn't going to help that! The doping will give them an edge against their peers (which I agree is immoral and illegal) but they are still achieving something quite remarkable. I just hope that this whole event does not detract from the best attack I'm sure I will ever witness - although I fear it will. Thanks again Free Floyd.
There is more valuable information in this BLOG than virtually all of the news stories I've read on the subject. Very few news agencies are looking into the bigger issue here which is how the whole thing makes no sense at all. Testosterone in a single dose is not proven to enhance performance. Sure it could imply that masking agents weren't used that day but since they've opened the can of worms regarding the reliability of the carbon isotope testing, they should therefore be able to detect masking agents in any of his other samples taken during the tour.
The UCI and more importantly, WADA, are given a lot of undeserved credibility. Given the importance of this finding, doesn't anyone else find it strange that the SAME LAB is testing the B Sample? If the A and B samples hadn't matched, don't you think that the lab's credibility could have been called into question? Don't you think the focus of the story would have changed from Landis to the failings within the testing process?
WADA and the UCI played no part in Operation Puerto which saw all the riders ejected prior to the start of the Tour. Prior to that was a damning report by the UCI's appointed independent reporter regarding the leak over Armstrong's 1999 samples. This report exposed major flaws within the control processes of the EXACT SAME LAB THAT JUST CONFIRMED LANDIS' B SAMPLE.
Neither the UCI or WADA want their credibility questioned. They also don't want their processes questioned or scrutinised as that would potentially undermine the management's leadership capabilities. I cannot say for certain what may have caused the problem in the A sample but I can say for certain that WADA, the french lab and even perhaps the UCI would have all faced some serious credibility issues if the B sample had come out differently.
And there's your agenda.
I think that there is something screwy with these test results. I will continue to support Landis and his win to all those uneducated Americans who know nothing about the background of the sport of cycling. I hope that there is the possibility of further testing (by an unbiased organization) that could give the cycling world the real "dope" on what happened to that A/B sample.
Y'all are welcome, ministry & christopher. noam chomsky once upon a time used the example of sports coverage in the media to exemplify the fact that joes-on-the-street *can* handle, process and generate insight from complex data. what's sad is that in two decades the complexity of sports coverage, the last co complexity in american media, has gone. when given the facts many people become smarter. i like participating in that process, in divulging information wherever possible. and this is one complex subject, but clearly one that many do understand and care about understanding. the media, well, they're all tossing Landis into the waste basket faster than you can say "Mel Gibson."
warkitty you ain't clueless. you're here aren't you ;)
ministry, have you read the vrijman report?
Post a Comment
<< Home