[gm1230126]

It's been announced that he's back on his bike and racing more long mountain bike events.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=news...08/jan18mtbnews

[sundaymorning]

It's been announced that he's back on his bike and racing more long mountain bike events.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=news...08/jan18mtbnews

I still think he'll only race a few of those events at the most. I think the odds are good his suspension gets backdated to end August 3-5 (whenever his B sample was officially positive). Then he signs with Rock Racing (if it's still around by then) and rides the national championship RR and the Tour of Missouri. I think he'll spend the summer getting himself back into road shape.

He sure did his best to burn any bridges with Vaughters in that Velo News interview, don't see Slipstream in his future. It seems to me that Basso is in a much better position (provided Landis loses his appeal) to get back to where he wants to be. Ivan kinda admitted, kept quiet and has proclaimed himself a new man. If Landis wins his appeal he's in good shape, but if he doesn't his defense strategy will probably really take it's toll.

[swimyouidiot]

I think the odds are good his suspension gets backdated to end August 3-5 (whenever his B sample was officially positive).

Interesting. What makes you think that, SM? Just the almost arbitrary date picked by the AAA majority?

I don't really understand that attack on Vaughters/Slipstream. His summarizes Vaughters message as "We don't care whether we win, at least we are racing clean." Floyd thinks that means that "Anyone who beats us must be doping." But that seems like a stretch to me. Especially when you consider that Vaughters is largely trying to create an irreproachable reputation for his team - probably to make it more valuable and get it into the Tour faster. Of course he has to emphasize that they are clean. Or am I missing Floyd's point?

In any case, I would LOVE to see him racing again by the end of this year.

Peace

[ludwig]

http://beta.velonews.com/article/71316

From my point of view, the problem that is taking cycling backwards and not forwards is that it’s becoming polarized. You have teams like Team High Horse, or whatever they’re called these days, and Jonathan Vaughters’ team, and they are saying we don’t care about winning, we just want to be clean and so it’s okay with us to get whatever place we get because we’re not doping. You know what? That’s one of the most offensive things you could ever say. That immediately accuses everyone who finishes ahead you of doping. That’s hypocrisy. That’s asinine. They have to stop saying that. It’s all fine and good that they are against doping, but for them to say we’re not interested in winning, we’re just interested in being clean is an accusation of anyone that is better than them.

Look, if this could happen in a vacuum, where everyone was clean, somebody would win. Somebody behind them would cry like a #####. That’s the problem. Now we’re never going to know who did or who didn’t cheat, but you can’t imply that everyone is cheating in front of you. That’s f--ked up man. That is not going to help cycling. Saying things like that is idiotic, and I can’ t believe no one else sees it the way I see it. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

NR: Well, in their defense, I have heard Vaughters and David Millar say things such as last year’s Tour was cleaner, the cleanest in years, and that the peloton seems to be cleaning up.

FL: Cleaner? Cleanest? A little bit cleaner? Look, the more they talk about it, the worse it gets for cycling. Of course we need to fix it. You will never solve all the crime. There is always going to be a police agency, because there are always going to be people trying to rob liquor stores. You’re never going to fix it. The more we talk about it, the longer this goes on. I’m not saying ignore it. I’m saying in the background enforce the rules the way they are written and leave it at that. That is what police do. That’s what the government does. The government enforces rules, and a person that breaks the rules pays for those rules in defined way. And after that, that’s it, that person then goes back out to live their life. In cycling, that’s not how it works. And the way it is now can never help cycling. It’s going to always be a mess until people start to realize that we have to have people enforcing the rules, and the rest of the time, the show goes on

From what I understand, Landis' logic is essentially Armstrong-era omerta logic. There are tests, there are rules, and as long as a rider doesn't break the rules he's fine etc. No one should say #### because if they do it hurts cycling. Essentially, there is no 'cheating' unless there is an official finding of 'cheating'.

But this will never satisfy those who want cycling to be a real sport. Nor is it likely to protect clean riders from the necessity of doping any time soon.

What happens when the edifice (ie, the "rules") no longer has credibility? When the cat is out of the bag and everyone knows the doping culture is out there? When no one can take results seriously because no one has any faith in the testing? When since Festina there has been high-level doping and the major players in cycling have been aware of it? When television crews go home because they can no longer cover cycling in good conscience? It's not like (as Landis implies) there are a certain specific set of rules in cycling that determine what can and cannot be said and what can and cannot be done. Like anything in life, there are competing agencies representing competing interests. It's a mess. And many of these agencies (read, the UCI, the teams association, many national federations) have a strong interest in protecting the doping omerta and the status quo. Other agencies do not. At present, it's clear enough that sweeping changes are not happening.... so the quandry is...where do sponsors go if they want to sponsor an ethically sound pro cycling team?

Sure, what High Road and Slipstream seem to be doing is disloyal to the omerta. They seem to be saying--we know the sport lacks credibility , but we're gonna do all we can to convince the public we're playing the game honestly. But according to Landis, it's offensive to admit the system is broken and doping exists. This is the omerta in its essence--a bunch of people committed to deception because it's in their interest to do so--and Landis is basically stuck in their camp. Landis effectively says that one shouldn't be able to say anything about the doping omerta and dopers unless they are caught red-handed..... But what happens in the meantime while sponsors and fans leave a sport they can no longer believe in, and journalists and police continue to expose cycling's dirty secrets?

I mean, it's not that Landis doesn't have a point that it's possible to talk too much about doping. But Landis appeals to the spirit of rules to the point of absurdity. Can he actually be serious that a cyclist shouldn't suffer consequences for a history of public lies unless there is a written regulation with a specific penalty for lying? The problem is that in the real world, cyclists are rewarded for lying. Basso will get a nice new contract at the end of his suspension because in the end he kept his mouth shut. Meanwhile, whistleblowers and truth tellers go on without contracts.

So essentially, the game is rigged. The rules are rigged. The point is to change them. The first step towards changing them is to come to consensus on what the facts on the ground actually are--and to do that people need to be able to speak the truth as they understand it.

Cycling will be on the right track when cyclists, cycling journalists, and cycling fans are unafraid to speak what they understand to be the truth without fear of reprisals or payback. When everyone can go about their business without having to lie and be ashamed of what they do. Quite possibly an impossible goal, but there must be a better way than the culture of deception that exists now.

Finally, Landis' attacks on Steve Johnson are embarrassing and a tad hysterical. Face it Floyd, all Johnson did was refuse to answer a question he wasn't qualified to answer. If he had answered yes, you would attack him for it. If he had answered no, you would attack him for it. And when he refused to answer, you attacked him for it. It's obvious to everyone that there is no answer he could give that would satisfy you.

This post has been edited by ludwig: 20 January 2008 - 01:06 AM

[filipo]

http://beta.velonews.com/article/71316

"Team High Horse"? Wow -- Floyd Landis really *is* a dipsh!t hick. I'm embarrassed to think I once thought he might be innocent.

NR: Who specifically is treating Tyler like ####? Are you referring to the UCI, USA Cycling, or the media…?

FL: I don’t know...

Exactly: No one, Floyd, no one at all. But my most favorite quote is:

Ultimately I don’t like to just complain.

Just, you know, in 5,000 word interviews with VeloNews. And in my book. And my book tour. And at pretty much outlet anyone's ever invited me to. But it's guys like "Team High Horse" that are the whiners. Got that?

This post has been edited by filipo: 19 January 2008 - 09:01 PM

[bambi]

I think the interwiew was very good.
I'm not a fan of Floyd, though I don't have anything against him either.
Good luck for him whatever he goes after in the future!

[sundaymorning]

Interesting. What makes you think that, SM? Just the almost arbitrary date picked by the AAA majority?

I understand why the AAA arbitrators picked the date, if that's what the rules call for (I'm not well versed enough to say one way or another). But I don't think it's right, the guy should have been considered suspended after the B sample results in August 2006, he didn't have a team and was not racing. I do think that the day he raced in Leadville should be added to his suspension, it was a UCI sanctioned event.

Great post ludwig.

[Kennf]

Another odd quote from the interview:

"There's a difference with the way they treated my case and the defense they put up in defense of Armstrong. ... There's something about this entire thing that is obviously, to anybody paying attention, not on the same level as the way they did things even a matter of two years before."



Okay, I'm wracking my brain, wondering if there's been any big doping revelations in the past two or three years that may make people reluctant to stick their necks out defending someone accused of doping. Hmmmm.

[swimyouidiot]

http://beta.velonews.com/article/71316
From what I understand, Landis' logic is essentially Armstrong-era omerta logic. There are tests, there are rules, and as long as a rider doesn't break the rules he's fine etc. No one should say #### because if they do it hurts cycling. Essentially, there is no 'cheating' unless there is an official finding of 'cheating'.

I don't think that is what he was saying at all, ludwig. I think what he said about Tyler Hamilton makes his point clearly:

For example, let’s look at Tyler Hamilton. You can think what you want about Tyler. But it’s irrelevant at this point. He’s served his suspension. People who are released from prison because of armed robbery after three years are not prevented from ever living as a human being again. They’ve served their time; let’s give them a chance, right? I’m not saying he is guilty or innocent, I don’t know.

All I’m saying is he served his time. There is no reason for everyone to say Michael Ball is somehow condoning doping because he wants to hire Tyler Hamilton. Tyler has a legitimate license. This problem will never be solved unless USA Cycling and the people on that side, on the side of enforcing the rules, and the people on the side of following the rules, the cyclists, all live by the rules. That is the point of a rule. If rules are ambiguous, if they’re not clear, then make them clear. But the ones that are clear, like a two-year suspension, when it ends the guy can race, then the guy can race, there’s no more discussion.

And I think he's exactly right about that. He's not talking about "omerta." Everybody has to live by the rules. If a guy serves his two year suspension and is back racing, then everybody should "get over it" and move on. If you think two years wasn't enough, then fine, advocate for a longer suspension, but if he gets two years and serves two years, then he's on the same footing (legally, even if not politically) as everybody else. Floyd is right to make a point of this, because BOTH the doping that is going on, and the hysterical response to it, are killing the sport.

Like anything in life, there are competing agencies representing competing interests. It's a mess. And many of these agencies (read, the UCI, the teams association, many national federations) have a strong interest in protecting the doping omerta and the status quo. Other agencies do not. At present, it's clear enough that sweeping changes are not happening.... so the quandry is...where do sponsors go if they want to sponsor an ethically sound pro cycling team?

Huh? I don't think anybody is now protecting the doping omerta and the status quo, except perhaps the Spanish Federation. I am no expert, but it seems to me that sweeping changes ARE happening. The biological passport, the sponsorship pull-outs, the teams doing their own testing. I don't have any idea what is going on in the peloton, but I have to believe there is much less tolerance to quietly watch other guys dope.

But according to Landis, it's offensive to admit the system is broken and doping exists.

What? In what way did he say that? He admits that doping exists. But his virulent point is that just because doping exists, that is not an excuse for an enforcement system run amok. One key component in fighting doping is to have clear, fair rules, and for everybody to follow the clear, fair rules. That is not condoning doping. It is an attempt to fix the broken system.

Landis effectively says that one shouldn't be able to say anything about the doping omerta and dopers unless they are caught red-handed

"Unless they are caught red-handed" is a cliche. He is saying that if you have real evidence that will stand up according to the currently established rules, then "prosecute." But if you have less than that then keep quiet until you have something that will hold up in "court." There is nothing wrong with that. It is called "due process." The American legal system is founded upon it. If you want to advocate for rules that allow less clear evidence to be admitted in a disciplinary process, then fine, do that. But, again, the rules are there for a reason. That is what everyone has currently agreed is fair and just. While they stand, stick to them.

Can he actually be serious that a cyclist shouldn't suffer consequences for a history of public lies unless there is a written regulation with a specific penalty for lying?

Yes, he can be serious about that, from the legal perspective. If the rider suffers ongoing political/public relations consequences, that's his tough luck. But, legally, he ought to be on equal standing with everyone else.

So essentially, the game is rigged. The rules are rigged. The point is to change them. The first step towards changing them is to come to consensus on what the facts on the ground actually are--and to do that people need to be able to speak the truth as they understand it.

Cycling will be on the right track when cyclists, cycling journalists, and cycling fans are unafraid to speak what they understand to be the truth without fear of reprisals or payback. When everyone can go about their business without having to lie and be ashamed of what they do. Quite possibly an impossible goal, but there must be a better way than the culture of deception that exists now.

That, I agree with.

I, too, don't like his attack on Johnson. Even if the guy was "lying" (I don't know) it can hardly be helpful to go on about it publicly. I frequently disagree with the way in which Landis chooses to handle things. He is way too quick to engage in personal attacks in public for my liking. I understand it, coming from his perspective and what he has been through (even if you think he is guilty (which I don't), I think you have to agree he got seriously, and totally unfairly, burned by Dick Pound, and others - he has every reason to be mad), but I don't like it.

I think you have to work hard to separate Landis' tone (which I also find highly offensive), from his underlying points (which are often valid and necessary, if cycling is to recover from its current deep pit).

Peace

[sundaymorning]

I don't think that is what he was saying at all, ludwig. I think what he said about Tyler Hamilton makes his point clearly:
And I think he's exactly right about that. He's not talking about "omerta." Everybody has to live by the rules. If a guy serves his two year suspension and is back racing, then everybody should "get over it" and move on. If you think two years wasn't enough, then fine, advocate for a longer suspension, but if he gets two years and serves two years, then he's on the same footing (legally, even if not politically) as everybody else. Floyd is right to make a point of this, because BOTH the doping that is going on, and the hysterical response to it, are killing the sport.

What? In what way did he say that? He admits that doping exists. But his virulent point is that just because doping exists, that is not an excuse for an enforcement system run amok. One key component in fighting doping is to have clear, fair rules, and for everybody to follow the clear, fair rules. That is not condoning doping. It is an attempt to fix the broken system.
"Unless they are caught red-handed" is a cliche. He is saying that if you have real evidence that will stand up according to the currently established rules, then "prosecute." But if you have less than that then keep quiet until you have something that will hold up in "court." There is nothing wrong with that. It is called "due process." The American legal system is founded upon it. If you want to advocate for rules that allow less clear evidence to be admitted in a disciplinary process, then fine, do that. But, again, the rules are there for a reason. That is what everyone has currently agreed is fair and just. While they stand, stick to them.

We've been round and round about this on this board, swim, but I'll take one more shot as I'm sitting here waiting for the Williams/Vadisova match to start.

You have all these different parties with differing rules and goals. I don't even think jr., in her infinite wisdom, could make sense of all of it. Yes, Virenque was able to appeal to the UCI oversight committee in 1999 and overturn his exclusion to the Tour. Valverde did the same last year at the CAS, for the WC. DiLuca got successfully excluded from the Tour in 2004, Ullrich and co. in 2006. Relax wasn't invited to the Vuelta last year. Mancebo, Koldo Gil and Nozal have been exiled to Portugal, because that's the only place they can get jobs. You have the UCI, the Pro Tour confederation, race organizers, different sets of national authorities and individual teams all fighting for what each individual organization's best interest seems to be. There are no clear rules, it's impossible, only differing rules and interests. Using the US system of justice as an analogy to this seems pointless. Besides, even in the US, often the court can only grant relief retroactively (hope that is the right characterization).

As for Tyler, he still has a license. He can race. He was cut loose from Tinkoff last year because Oleg saw him as a liability. But seriously, who can blame organizers for not wanting him on the start line? He was warned by the UCI to stop the funny stuff. He didn't. He failed a test at the Olympics and two at the Vuelta. The Puerto documents include a fax to his wife in Girona. His home address in Boulder is written on the back of the doping program attributed to him. I'll give you an analogy an you can tell me if it is a good one. If you were a news organization, would you hire a reporter who had been shown to have been making up stories, if after two years that reporter were unrepentant? What if he were a career war reporter who had been making up stories about US war atrocities, would the Pentagon still grant him access?

This post has been edited by sundaymorning: 20 January 2008 - 07:08 AM

[D-Queued]

...
I think you have to agree he got seriously, and totally unfairly, burned by Dick Pound, and others - he has every reason to be mad), but I don't like it.

...

Peace

That is a troll.

I expect you to defend Landis, but I don't expect you to resort to Ali-like arguments.

He got burned far more badly by Will. His arguments are a reminder of the shrill invective spouted by Will. You and others suggested we separate one from the other. Tell that to Floyd.

What comes across very clearly is that he has not learned a single lesson.

Dave.

[frenchfry]

...
I, too, don't like his attack on Johnson. Even if the guy was "lying" (I don't know) it can hardly be helpful to go on about it publicly. I frequently disagree with the way in which Landis chooses to handle things. He is way too quick to engage in personal attacks in public for my liking. I understand it, coming from his perspective and what he has been through (even if you think he is guilty (which I don't), I think you have to agree he got seriously, and totally unfairly, burned by Dick Pound, and others - he has every reason to be mad), but I don't like it.

I think you have to work hard to separate Landis' tone (which I also find highly offensive), from his underlying points (which are often valid and necessary, if cycling is to recover from its current deep pit).

Peace

I find both the tone and content of what Landis has to say offensive. Those who don't agree with him are reprehensible. Those who dare to suppport action to rid sport of doping are reprehensible. Same old tactic he has been using for over a year now.

I would imagine it's a lot easier to defend him when he keeps his own trap shut. Interview like this will only serve to flame the ardour of his most fervent supporters, of which I can't imagine there are a lot left.

[jimmypop]

Recent interviews with Landis are difficult to get through. Taken on the whole, what he says reads like a guy who's guilty and upset that he got caught.

I understand the sour grapes, as many others were engaged in the same shenanigans, but at the very least he could take responsibility for his own actions.

He must be out of money, because he clearly doesn't have a PR filter.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. If it weren't for the FFF (I'll leave the funny up to D-Q), then he may have an incentive to just come out with it all. Here's a guy who's lost everything, and I bet he's chomping at the bit to name some names.

[ludwig]

And I think he's exactly right about that. He's not talking about "omerta." Everybody has to live by the rules. If a guy serves his two year suspension and is back racing, then everybody should "get over it" and move on. If you think two years wasn't enough, then fine, advocate for a longer suspension, but if he gets two years and serves two years, then he's on the same footing (legally, even if not politically) as everybody else. Floyd is right to make a point of this, because BOTH the doping that is going on, and the hysterical response to it, are killing the sport.

What I mean by "omerta" is the code of silence, along with the attitude that talking about doping will not help cycling. It's essentially an attitude of loyalty and respect to the old guard. And it has a mafia-esque enforcement quality--those who stray from the code are punished and scapegoated. What Landis effectively says in the quote I discussed above is that by talking about doping and implying major teams are doping, those who are talking are making the situation worse by reinforcing the idea that doping is common in the public's eye. While this line has some truth to it, it's undermined by the facts on the ground, including that those who are doping have little incentive to stop if there is no threat of exposure. The "rules" (I suppose by this he means UCI testing) did virtually nothing to stop doping in the past 15 years, as most of the major OP riders never tested positive. If everyone goes back to pretending doping doesn't exist, then there is more rather than less incentive to dope.

Re. Tyler, I have no problem with him riding, but I can certainly understand why he's controversial. For myself, I don't think the deniers help the sport in any way, and I have a hard time rooting for Tyler because I'd hate to think he could become an example for young riders.

Huh? I don't think anybody is now protecting the doping omerta and the status quo, except perhaps the Spanish Federation. I am no expert, but it seems to me that sweeping changes ARE happening. The biological passport, the sponsorship pull-outs, the teams doing their own testing. I don't have any idea what is going on in the peloton, but I have to believe there is much less tolerance to quietly watch other guys dope.

I think that's a little naive. Changes are occuring but the leadership of the sport is pretty much the same. The DSes in charge of the major teams are the same. If you have a managment team in place that has been insisting it will change policy for the past 10 years, and nothing has happened, then how much credibility do they have left?

This is kinda where fans and media become part of the "hysterical repsonse". Some fans want those responsible for the sport fraud to leave and give the sport a chance to become respectable again. Police and media similar feelings, and this leads them to expose doping rings now and again.

But is there a way to form a structure that could stop or at least curtail doping in the peloton? I think there are things cycling could do to enforce anti-doping in addition to year-round testing, including holding teams directly responsible for all individual doping and having anti-doping managers who are accountable in each team. It needs amnesty in exchange for confessions and information on doping rings, and it needs a reliable, independent comission to determine what has happened in the past 15 years and propose a concrete plan for weening the sport off the dope. But mostly cycling needs to radically change its philosophy on questions of ethics and integrity, and try to stop the cycle of deception and consequent gotchas when deception is exposed. It needs to understand that doping does not hurt its credibility so much as the perception that cyclists cannot be trusted to tell the truth. It's needs to wake up to the reality of the Internet and the ability of the police and media to expose sport fraud--however expertly it is carried out.

And it's kind of hard to do any of these things when you have a leadership in cycling that has been committed to deception for 15 years. I mean--amnesty in exchange for confession...that's the last thing the doping DSes want! Ultimately the changes cycling needs requires a lot of people talking....but currently cyclists aren't allowed to talk.

If it's true that the answer is no one can stop doping and cyclists will always cheat, then perhaps legalization or returing to looking the other way is the sane course. But right now it's hard to make conclusions one way or another, because under Omerta virtually no one in cycling speaks their mind, so fans have practically no way of knowing what pro cyclists think.

This post has been edited by ludwig: 20 January 2008 - 06:41 PM

[swimyouidiot]

Ludwig, I agree with just about everything you say there (qualification below). My use of the word "sweeping" may overestimate the changes that are taking place, but some change is happening for the better, for a less doped up sport. If it continues in this direction, and they put more money into more frequent and better tests (fewer false negatives, mainly - fewer false positives, also, but the false negatives are the bigger problem obviously), then in five years they just might have a fairly clean sport.

I like your constructive proposals, and would love to see the "good old boy" cycling leadership come unglued. I agree they have a lot of dirt on their hands. I honestly don't know whether, with the right structure/system/processes in place if they could change, or if they have to be removed from the sport. I'd be willing to try the former, and do the later if things didn't change quickly.

The qualification is the way you characterize what Floyd said in the interview, although now I see why we disagree about how to understand what he said. You think he was talking about what happens at the front end the system (before someone is accused of doping). I think he was talking mainly about what happens after someone is accused of doping. I think his main point comes near the end of what you quote above, when he says "The government enforces rules, and a person that breaks the rules pays for those rules in defined way. And after that, that’s it, that person then goes back out to live their life. In cycling, that’s not how it works." (As evidence, I would note the way the AFLD has banned Floyd. They didn't even pretend to respect the official, agreed upon way his case was supposed to be handled by WADA/USADA/CAS. They just banned him. If the federations can do that, well then you truly have a system in chaos.)

Yes, some of what he says is directed at the front end of the system. But that's back to what I called "due process" (although what SM said about the limits of that analogy are a good point). The situation is chaotic, with the teams, federations, race organizers, the UCI and WADA all fighting. But the goal still has to be a situation in which there are clear rules for what constitutes a violation (or even suspicion if that's how the rule is decided) that keeps you from racing - and then everybody abides by the rules. If you don't have "evidence" that comes up to a certain, agreed upon bar, then you keep quiet until you do. That's not "omerta." That's avoiding "witch hunts." (For clarification, let me say that the main problem with the Salem Witch Trials was that the court allowed the introduction of "spectral evidence." That is, people were allowed to testify about what "specters" - or ghosts - had told them about an alleged witch. Thus the "evidence" used against the accused witches was entirely arbitrary and unsupportable by objective facts - obviously you can make up whatever "evidence" you want if all you have to say is "a ghost told me.") If you don't have the type of evidence that has been agreed is legitimate, then, again, keep quiet until you do.

Yep, a troll, that's me. Some of you finally figured it out.

Peace

[strbuk]

'jimmypop' wrote: Recent interviews with Landis are difficult to get through. Taken on the whole, what he says reads like a guy who's guilty and upset that he got caught.

Even this seems to be somewhat arbitrary and open to interpretation. I read recent interviews with Floyd as indicative of someone who is somewhat bitter about being unjustly accused, convicted, and thrown onto the trash heap of history. Funny how one's personal biases, and of course I admit to my own bias here as well, can even effect how another's words and actions are interpreted.

P

This post has been edited by strbuk: 21 January 2008 - 05:17 AM

[fab]

'jimmypop' wrote: Recent interviews with Landis are difficult to get through. Taken on the whole, what he says reads like a guy who's guilty and upset that he got caught.

Even this seems to be somewhat arbitrary and open to interpretation. I read recent interviews with Floyd as indicative of someone who is somewhat bitter about being unjustly accused, convicted, and thrown onto the trash heap of history. Funny how one's personal biases, and of course I admit to my own bias here as well, can even effect how another's words and actions are interpreted.

To avoid interpretations it's better to look at the facts...

Landis rode against doped riders for years and was able to stay in the leading group and even sometimes to win.
We have discovered that EPO, blood doping, EPO, T,... were commonly used inside peloton. Landis rode against T-Mob riders who were following a doping program.
Even after his bonk, Landis was able to drop the blood doped Sinkewitz...

Sure Landis was as clean as Jan, Vino, Basso, LA, Virenque, Rasmussen,...and all Ferrari's, Fuentes', ... customers.

His feelings is just he won in the same conditions of his opponents... but he forget that they have beaten some clean riders who were riding just on the first speed.

As some posters complaining with the losers of the doping system, I would add:
What a whiner...

[D-Queued]

...

Yep, a troll, that's me. Some of you finally figured it out.

Peace

Maybe you are a troll, maybe not.

That wasn't the point, and you know it. The point was that your reference to Pound was a troll, and you know it.

I do read your posts, because even if I have fundamental disagreements I do find your comments of interest.

You have gone from trying to use Dick Pound as a lightning rod to justifying the use of the term 'witch hunt'. That is an even bigger troll, and, if you read what you wrote, an even bigger farce.

Omerta as an anology does fit. Ludwig having just provided yet another excellent rationale for why it works.

Nobody was using spectre evidence against Floyd. Your point is specious. Unless, of course, it is the spectre or, rather, spectacle of Will.

And, when we are talking about hard evidence or shut up, then why don't you do us all a favor and cut the bull#### pseudo science arguments. Err, follow your own rules?

Dave.

[rational head]

Here is Part 3.

http://beta.velonews.com/article/71317

Floyd interprets tests and science. I got lost.

[frenchfry]

Here is Part 3.

http://beta.velonews.com/article/71317

Floyd interprets tests and science. I got lost.

When Floyd gets talking science, he transforms into a cycling version of Jean-Claude Van Damme. Even his most ardent "scientific" supporters over on TBV can't seem to figure where he is going with his arguments.

This is one of the biggest problems I have with Floyd. Even though he may have a few legitimate points regarding the process, they are lost in the righteous indignation and manipulation of the "facts". I can't help thinking that even if you really believe he is innocent, his ramblings do more to hurt the public perception of his case than to help. Attacking the French lab workers or the Canadian arbitrators is pretty low, but totally consistant with Floyd's approach to date.