[The Rake]

Andrew,

Let me summarise what you said (and please correct me if I'm wrong).

Amongst the general population, Floyd is an American hero. He won the Tour de France and if they met him in the street, they'd be asking for his autograph. Would they ? ... I know they would !

Rewrite the above bit, but assume Floyd was, say, called Floydimir Landiskov, and an American had come second.

Secondly, with regards to the rest of the world being sceptical about the "proof" offered by the Labs, I disagree, whether they have scientific knowledge or not. It is widely reported that the labs stuffed up, but also that it still showed exogenous testosterone in the guy's wee wee.

As such, I shrug off the lab bit, but still assume he is guilty. Perhaps I stand alone.

This post has been edited by The Rake: 29 August 2008 - 05:46 PM

[Andrew]

You know, the autograph test is a particularly silly and pointless way of measuring the opinions of the populace. The vast majority of Americans think Paris Hilton is an ugly, talentless, imbecile--but they'd be delighted to have their picture taken with her and would be thrilled to get her signature. So what?

[Ali]

Is really the Ali we know? No convoluted, post-modern dissemblings and evasions? Just a feeble attempt to shore up his vanishingly small minority opinion....? Although, it does sound as if the cheque from Ffflyod might not have bounced. Does being popular and grabbing headlines mean that you're more likely to be innocent? Strange attitude...Face it, the people that have interest in this case (everybody here, and the majority of serious cyclists) have, to Andrew's points, real issues with Ffflyod; issues that don't discount their attitudes about the quality of testing and testing facilities.

I'll correct only one of your obvious errors (hey, it's Friday) :

"Face it, the people that have interest in this case (everybody here, and the majority of serious cyclists) have, to Andrew's points, real issues with Ffflyod"

According to Andrew, serious cyclists who are actually capable of understanding what went down with the science (and at this point, I'll venture that if you don't understand it, your opinion isn't worth sh1t) had more issues with LNDD than they had with Floyd. That was my experience. It wasn't yours. Draw your own conclusions.

You know, the autograph test is a particularly silly and pointless way of measuring the opinions of the populace. The vast majority of Americans think Paris Hilton is an ugly, talentless, imbecile--but they'd be delighted to have their picture taken with her and would be thrilled to get her signature. So what?

So what ? Go back to my original post. The point I made was that nobody cared. The only people who care enough to consider his guilt or innocence exist in this microcosm of circular arguements. Attaching such self importance to your opinions when nobody else gives a toss is delusional (but admirable)

Rewrite the above bit, but assume Floyd was, say, called Floydimir Landiskov, and an American had come second.

Secondly, with regards to the rest of the world being sceptical about the "proof" offered by the Labs, I disagree, whether they have scientific knowledge or not. It is widely reported that the labs stuffed up, but also that it still showed exogenous testosterone in the guy's wee wee.

As such, I shrug off the lab bit, but still assume he is guilty. Perhaps I stand alone.

Huh ?

They screwed up the test which detects exo-T, but because the results indicated it was there, than he was guilty.

That's a bit like saying if I screw up a biopsy on you and erroneously notify you of cancer, than you do have cancer, because the results said so ? WTF !

[Andrew]

"Delusional but admirable"--I think that's how my students would describe me. I'd be entirely willing to admit to the first term if I could be granted the second.

"According to Andrew, serious cyclists who are actually capable of understanding what went down with the science (and at this point, I'll venture that if you don't understand it, your opinion isn't worth sh1t) had more issues with LNDD than they had with Floyd." That isn't quite what I said. The scientists I know think the science in the case was flawed enough that any verdict based on it is of dubious legality. Which has nothing at all to do with whether or not Floyd doped. Two unrelated issues.

[Ali]

"Delusional but admirable"--I think that's how my students would describe me. I'd be entirely willing to admit to the first term if I could be granted the second.

"According to Andrew, serious cyclists who are actually capable of understanding what went down with the science (and at this point, I'll venture that if you don't understand it, your opinion isn't worth sh1t) had more issues with LNDD than they had with Floyd." That isn't quite what I said. The scientists I know think the science in the case was flawed enough that any verdict based on it is of dubious legality. Which has nothing at all to do with whether or not Floyd doped. Two unrelated issues.

S T O P !

Alarm bells are ringing. I could scream at what you just said. It is the very crux of what I hate about this whole situation.

1) Why do you think Floyd doped ? Is it because the result of his test indicated he doped or did you just know for a fact that he was a doper before any of this kicked off ? Let's say that if he had never failed a dope test you would not be sitting there thinking he was a doper, right ? You'd think he won clean ?

2) Let's establish that the criteria you apply for being a doper is failing a dope test

3) The very test which you would use as the criteria for establishing whether somebody was a doper is flawed. You acknowledge that yourself, for goodness sake ! Am I getting through to you ? He wasn't preordained to be a doper. People only think that because the ####ed up tests say he doped. The very tests which even you question ...

I refer you to my comment to Roadent. The fact that I screwed up your biopsy doesn't change the fact that it says you have cancer ! (even if you don't)

This post has been edited by Ali: 29 August 2008 - 07:43 PM

[Andrew]

quote name='Ali' date='Aug 29 2008, 12:42 PM' post='126217'

S T O P !

Alarm bells are ringing. I could scream at what you just said. It is the very crux of what I hate about this whole situation.

1) Why do you think Floyd doped ? Is it because the result of his test indicated he doped or did you just know for a fact that he was a doper before any of this kicked off ? Let's say that if he had never failed a dope test you would not be sitting there thinking he was a doper, right ? You'd think he won clean ?

I thought Floyd doped--was on dope--when I was watching stage 17 of the 2006 Tour de France. I said, at the time, to my friends, "Floyd Landis can't ride a bike like that." I could have them, and my sister, post to corroborate that. Granted there were some seriously retarded tactics in the peloton that day, but I never for one second doubted that was a drug-fueled ride.


2) Let's establish that the criteria you apply for being a doper is failing a dope test

3) The very test which you would use as the criteria for establishing whether somebody was a doper is flawed. You acknowledge that yourself, for goodness sake ! Am I getting through to you ? He wasn't preordained to be a doper. People only think that because the ####ed up tests say he doped. The very tests which even you question ...

I refer you to my comment to Roadent. The fact that I screwed up your biopsy doesn't change the fact that it says you have cancer ! (even if you don't)

I wouldn't use medical standards for this case, I'd use legal standards. The way the lab screwed up leaves reasonable doubt about Floyd's guilt or innocence. If you want to keep it medical, put it this way: just because the lab screwed up your biopsy, that doesn't mean you don't have cancer.

This post has been edited by Andrew: 29 August 2008 - 08:08 PM

[Ali]

quote name='Ali' date='Aug 29 2008, 12:42 PM' post='126217'

S T O P !

Alarm bells are ringing. I could scream at what you just said. It is the very crux of what I hate about this whole situation.

1) Why do you think Floyd doped ? Is it because the result of his test indicated he doped or did you just know for a fact that he was a doper before any of this kicked off ? Let's say that if he had never failed a dope test you would not be sitting there thinking he was a doper, right ? You'd think he won clean ?

I thought Floyd doped--was on dope--when I was watching stage 17 of the 2006 Tour de France. I said, at the time, to my friends, "Floyd Landis can't ride a bike like that." I could have them, and my sister, post to corroborate that. Granted there were some seriously retarded tactics in the peloton that day, but I never for one second doubted that was a drug-fueled ride.
2) Let's establish that the criteria you apply for being a doper is failing a dope test

3) The very test which you would use as the criteria for establishing whether somebody was a doper is flawed. You acknowledge that yourself, for goodness sake ! Am I getting through to you ? He wasn't preordained to be a doper. People only think that because the ####ed up tests say he doped. The very tests which even you question ...

I refer you to my comment to Roadent. The fact that I screwed up your biopsy doesn't change the fact that it says you have cancer ! (even if you don't)

I wouldn't use medical standards for this case, I'd use legal standards. The way the lab screwed up leaves reasonable doubt about Floyd's guilt or innocence. If you want to keep it medical, put it this way: just because the lab screwed up your biopsy, that doesn't mean you don't have cancer.

'Nuff said. Thanks for the conversation.

[ZigZagged]

..Amongst the general population, Floyd is an American hero. He won the Tour de France and if they met him in the street, they'd be asking for his autograph. Would they ? ... I know they would !...

I think amongst the general American population it'd be more like "Floyd who? He rides a bike? Like that Lance guy with cancer? And I seem to remember a guy who used to ride...name sounded like Almond..."

And I know none of this is addressed to me, but I'd never ask someone for an autograph unless they asked me first- a little bit of world view I learned from my Uncle Harold. But I have been given much appreciated autographed glossies of Ted Knight and Nick Faldo, just to be transparent on this issue.

...The vast majority of Americans think Paris Hilton is an ugly, talentless, imbecile...

I heard her single recently, and God help me, it didn't suck!!! And I'm a hard rock/ metalhead guy! Also, the video reply she made to her unwanted inclusion in a John McCain ad was pretty damn sharp, I gotta say- much sharper than the McCain ad.

But now I'm out of this discussion. Carry on if you must.

[The Rake]

I heard her single recently, and God help me, it didn't suck!!! And I'm a hard rock/ metalhead guy! Also, the video reply she made to her unwanted inclusion in a John McCain ad was pretty damn sharp, I gotta say- much sharper than the McCain ad.

But now I'm out of this discussion. Carry on if you must.

Careful Zig.

Shecdidn't write it and probably didn't sing it. She sure as hell didn't conceptualise the Pink White House thing. Still, I don't believe she ever broke traffic laws. The police musta screwed up.

[Ali]

Check this out ... I'm sure you'll appreciate the humor (quite British and sounds good too !)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLdkz6HYBGg&NR=1

There's a message there somewhere ... but you need to watch it to the end to get the punchline

Yep, never fails to put a smile on my face ...

The message, the message ... it made me deaf ... Esmeralda !

[Ali]

OK, I tried being subtle before, but it obviously didn't work ...

WEEZY, YOU OLD FART, YOUR INBOX IS FULL OR TURNED OFF !!!

I CANNOT REPLY !!!

GET IT !!

This post has been edited by Ali: 30 August 2008 - 01:07 PM

[weezy]

Ali -- that's a heck of a way to talk to granny -- calling her an "old fart"

This post has been edited by weezy: 31 August 2008 - 08:49 PM

[MacRoadie]

Amongst the general population, Floyd is an American hero. He won the Tour de France and if they met him in the street, they'd be asking for his autograph. Would they ? ... I know they would !

People also clamored and fought to get their picture taken with John Dillinger's corpse...

[Chris E]

You know, the autograph test is a particularly silly and pointless way of measuring the opinions of the populace. The vast majority of Americans think Paris Hilton is an ugly, talentless, imbecile--but they'd be delighted to have their picture taken with her and would be thrilled to get her signature. So what?

Some of us would be thrilled to get more than that.

[N.B.O.L.]

Some of us would be thrilled to get more than that.

Yea, I'd like some of her daddy's money too. That is what your were talking about wasn't it Chris??

[ZigZagged]

Careful Zig.

Shecdidn't write it and probably didn't sing it. She sure as hell didn't conceptualise the Pink White House thing. Still, I don't believe she ever broke traffic laws. The police musta screwed up.

I know, I know- but I thought the same thing when I heard the song, that people are gonna think I'm crazy if I say it isn't horrible. But it didn't suck, it didn't sound totall processed, and anyway, not many in that genre write their own songs (which is why I can respect such music only so much). And the reply to McCain's ad was well done- I'm sure she didn't write it, but she pulled it off.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan, she ain't in my iPod- I'm just someone surprised by her apparent competence, at least in those two instances. I'm not proud of it, just surprised. At least making music and videos keeps her off the streets- that's gotta be a good thing.

[Ali]

I know, I know- but I thought the same thing when I heard the song, that people are gonna think I'm crazy if I say it isn't horrible. But it didn't suck, it didn't sound totall processed, and anyway, not many in that genre write their own songs (which is why I can respect such music only so much). And the reply to McCain's ad was well done- I'm sure she didn't write it, but she pulled it off.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan, she ain't in my iPod- I'm just someone surprised by her apparent competence, at least in those two instances. I'm not proud of it, just surprised. At least making music and videos keeps her off the streets- that's gotta be a good thing.

You know what, Zig, you were just being honest. I'm the same with music. If I listen to it and it sounds good (i.e. improves my mood), then it's good music. That's the only criteria I apply.

Ali

[Ali]

People also clamored and fought to get their picture taken with John Dillinger's corpse...

What's your point caller ?

[ZigZagged]

You know what, Zig, you were just being honest. I'm the same with music. If I listen to it and it sounds good (i.e. improves my mood), then it's good music. That's the only criteria I apply.

Ali

I still feel kind of guilty...I'm much more of an Alice in Chains and heavier metal type with an Oasis Brit-rock bent to my taste. But it actually did improve my mood because I was so surprised- it was nice to recognize a bit of added value to humanity by her existence, something I previously thought impossible.

Anyway, on topic, OF COURSE Floyd will be hired. Probably by Rock, possibly by any number of teams. Unless his hip fails, the guy can freakin' ride a bike, no doubt, and he has a few more years. My ideal scenario would be for him to go to BMC partly for the bikes and partly to blow people's minds, but I'm assuming Rock.

[Surftel]

The Floyd fans will be happy to hear, he got a job. And it is not with Rock or BMC.....you will see him in the US a bunch next year.

This post has been edited by Surftel: 01 September 2008 - 03:30 AM