i hesitate to put this here, because i don't want to trivialize this tragedy by comparing it to cycling...but, after reading the various re-hashes of the floyd debate, i can't get this story out of my head...i'm sure many of you know about it...was in the news not too long ago.

i feel like there are lessons for both sides here...but i DO NOT think that this story is, in any way, a direct analogy to floyd's story...

for the record, i believe both, that floyd doped, and that he was scapegoated...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09...currentPage=all

it's a bit of a read...sorry.

I read, and I read, then I read some more before I realised that I needed about another week to finish the article. Wow, what a lot of words.

Skimming down to the bottom, it appears that the case was not as clearcut as initially thought, but the accused wasn't proven to be innocent either. There was enough doubt though that he never should have been executed.

I remember reading about a case where someone on death row had consistently professed innocence and had numerous supporters pleading his case. After he was put to death, DNA testing proved that indeed he was guilty.

Of course isolated examples in no way prove anything, and the death sentence is not to be compared to a sporting suspension.

I read and read as well, though ff may have read more.

But, I did keep coming back to your premise that Floyd was scapegoated.

Sorry, I do not agree.

I do not agree because the 'show trial' was his orchestration. The PR campaign was his orchestration.

What we have seen with Floyd, over and over again, is the penchant for lying. He lied about testosterone's effects. He had a long string of lies starting with the JD&Beer from the very beginning. Now he has a website that is chock full of lies. Lies that include the gross and the subtle - such as describing the AAA Hearing as a trial. It wasn't a trial, even though he was instrumental in choosing the Pepperdine site for its potential drama and trial-like appearance.

Floyd lies. And, I think it grossly diminishes this case to try and form any analogies with Floyd.

Dave.

Not really sure how someone can be guilty and be scapegoated - if you believe Landis was doping, he got the standard 2-year suspension, nothing more, nothing less than any other rider. What's happening now with the warrant et al. is completely separate from that - that's a criminal investigation, has nothing to do with cycling.

The only way that I feel any sympathy for Landis is that, imo, he wasn't doing anything that the others weren't, he just got caught doing it. Is that fair? Tough to say - on the one hand, he was doping. On the other hand, again imo the other GC riders were probably doping as well.

But having said all that, he knew what the risks were, and he just happened to be one of the ones to get caught.

ff, the case was prosecuted based on the testimony of the states pre-eminent forensic arson investigator...a "scientist". It turned out that this man was completely wrong about his interpretation of the data...not because he was a bad man, or because there was some conspiracy, his deductions were simply wrong(they were really inductions, not deductions at all, but because of his authority, his interpretations were given the weight of fact) ...sadly, that's not the only example of the system failing in this story...

velo, "The only way that I feel any sympathy for Landis is that, imo, he wasn't doing anything that the others weren't, he just got caught doing it. Is that fair? Tough to say - on the one hand, he was doping. On the other hand, again imo the other GC riders were probably doping as well." yes...that's essentially all i meant by "scapegoated"...made an example of...if the good-guys won and the bad-guys lost, then why is it "tough to say" if it was fair? that's the question i have...i don't know the answer, but i suspect that it should not be tough to discern whether or not it was fair, and the fact that it is tells me that there's something there worth thinking about.

dq, stop being so pre-offensive... i agree that fl is a liar. i think nothing that i or you say can "grossly diminish" the story i linked you to (not even that attempt at pretending that there is some moral high-ground at risk of being swallowed by the underworld by reading and thinking about a fukin story. truthfully, i'm a little offended that you're trying that tact...ironically, it was partly that attitude, that some things are just too sacred to talk about, that ultimately condemned mr. willingham...so let's put the pr behind us ok?)...you're smart...you could probably find a life-lesson watching a dog take a dump...if you can't, then i've underestimated you.

Hi diknutz,

Sorry - and you are, in fact, probably right and thanks for the lesson. Dogs who seemingly sniff everything, and can pee all over everything, still have some desire to cover up the s***. Fascinating.

My comments weren't really directed at you, just at the subject of Floyd. Sorry.

Dave.

Actually, I think you'll find that when dogs do the moonwalk after taking a dump, they're trying to spread the s***, not cover it up. That may still work for you, though.

Don't see how Landis was "made an example of" - he was unlucky/careless enough to get caught, he went through the same process that any rider goes through once caught, and he was given the same penalty. It was Landis himself who turned this into the circus that it's become, not anyone else.

So when I say that I feel "any sympathy", I really don't feel all that much sympathy at all. They've (ie all riders/athletes who choose to dope) all taken the same risks, they all knew what those risks were, and they all knew the consequences of getting caught, and because of that, I don't really feel much sympathy for them when they do get caught. What does bother me, and what I meant by the unfairness of it, is that some riders (ie Landis) get caught while others (ie Armstrong, Contador, etc) who did the exact same thing find fame and fortune and are held up as heroes simply because, for whatever reason, they managed to not get caught. I suppose it's the overarching hypocrisy of it all that bothers me than anything else.

lesson #1, if you wind up in a position where you're being judged by other people, you're going to be judged by the posters on your wall, the tattoos on your arm, and the company you've kept...right or wrong

lesson #2, elizabeth gilbert...floyd needs one.

lesson #3, deduction or induction?...sloppy protocol(or even the appearance of it) opens the door to the question...even if the results are eventually found to be correct...

velo, thinking more about what you said about fairness...i'm questioning whether or not deterrence works, or is appropriate in cycling...frequently, i see police cars in school zones...they obviously can't pull over every car that speeds through the school zone, but they get a few, and just the fact of their presence acts as a deterent to other drivers who might be speeding through the zone...result is fewer cars speeding through school zones...that is good. for me, that analogy starts to break down when i think about it visavis cycling...certainly, every doper busted equals one less doper in the peloton, and that is good...but i still have little confidence that the RESULTS of the race(say the '06 tdf for example) reflect who should have won...for sure, somewhere down the list, a clean rider was bumped up one spot by floyd's foible...good...hell, in that race, a couple dozen guys who were likely cheating weren't even allowed to start...even better, but that seems to've been a singular event (excluding so many riders before the start)...the issue i have is that; just like doping re-shuffles the deck and makes the outcome somewhat random, so does busting only SOME of the cheaters...it's just a little bit smaller deck, so the clean guys have slightly better odds(but really, their odds of winning are just as remote because they're still competing against dopers)...that just isn't satisfying to me as a competitor or a spectator...further, i think that it may not act as a deterent(to bust a few), but rather an incentive to develop "better" doping techniques...or, as much as it is a deterent, it is also an incentive...

dq, i know you weren't talking to me...that is exactly what offended me. i also know that, on the internet, as in politics (two lands of the least common denominator), it pays to stick to your message and talking points, even if they have nothing to do with the question you were asked...that's what you have to do to win in these forums right?...kinda like doping in cycling huh?
you're right that the analogy is not one-to-one, and that to try and make it seem so would be...well, gross. like i said, i just think there are bits of that story that both sides of this debate could learn from...probably not a good idea to introduce that story into such a charged environment...

thanks,

that's what i understood you to mean. i do feel as though a grave was dug before the race even started though...the only question being, which idiot would chunk himself into it. i feel like this because i have little doubt that they could oust the winner almost every year, if they cared to. i think floyd doesn't understand that it was a grave, and not a cross...well, he's beginning to see that now...sorry, joke.

Congrats. You are back on ignore. Hope you enjoyed the day pass.


I got it.

I don't have a horse in this race, and do enjoy the conversation. Thus, I overstepped my own bounds by not listening properly.

I will agree that in the year of OP, if you were doping (which they probably all were as we have since seen), you should have been extra specially careful. If you did get caught, you should have taken the high road (hello Ivan Basso). Floyd did not take the high road.

Otherwise, while the NY Yorker article is compelling, I cannot see much in the way of analogy here - at least not in the way of scapegoating which is the analogy you had narrowly proposed.

I am ok with you having a different opinion, but to explain my opinion please take a look at Floyd's new web site. This appears to be outright taunting - which is pretty consistent behavior. Would you regard it as scapegoating if WADA or Dick Pound, for example, were to pursue his web site for libel?

If Floyd were being scapegoated, wouldn't the opposite be true? Wouldn't Floyd be the silent one?

We should give Floyd some credit for "a complete overhaul of a failed system". Though suggesting it was a complete overhaul could be a bit of an overstatement, Floyd did, in fact, get rewarded with a new rule in his honor: The Floyd Rule. The labs and ADA's no longer have to remain quiet if they are being publicly maligned.

I am not working to 'stay on message' here, though I respect your point, but appearances are that, if anything, Floyd has strenuously tried to appear the scapegoat while taking advantages of the system's inability to defend itself against such extreme attacks.

Was Willingham scapegoated? Possibly. The New Yorker article raises questions that are hard to answer. Was Floyd scapegoated? No.

Dave.

I can tell that you were thinking "Hope you enjoyed your day in the sun ..."

What a conceited wanker you really are ... I'd forgotten.

scapegoating, is not one of the analogs that holds here...i agree...i stated that opinion (along with another one, that floyd cheated(which you ignored) as an honest attempt at letting folks know where i'm coming from...a place i perceived to be somewhat in the middle...both of those premises are opinions i'd formed before reading the NYer article. a couple of the analogs that i do think stand up are listed, as "lessons #1-3, in my previous post...i think there are more, but i was trying not to be didactic...really, you're talking to someone who is just interested in broader issues here (the inertia of the system, fairness, the role of science/technology..i'm less interested in fl's sociopathic tendencies, and his ranting and lying isn't really all that uncommon among criminals, athletes, or teenagers...so that doesn't pique my interest either)...i'm not trying in any way to exonerate fl...he just happens to be the grain of dust at the center of a hailstone.

i haven't visited floyd's website, and probably will not...i trust your characterization of it...i will say that you are doing a good job of advertising it though ...i think that floyd's case brings up some interesting issues...issues that he has forfeited/exhausted his right to pursue (not that that's stopping him from trying)...but, since i don't know him, work for him, or really care about his fate one way or the other, i feel like i can think about and talk about those issues without having to be dragged into the "did he/didn't he"...he did, i think. when i perceive that floyd landis is f@ing with my flow, then i might come to share your passion...btw, i admire your passion.

why would a scapegoated person be silent, as you suggest? if i were scapegoated, i'd be raging...you would too.

i think he was not scapegoated the way that he wants us to think he was...i.e. i think we could very easily be using the name of almost any other top 10-20 rider from '06, while it is central to floyd's construct that it's all about him...it has nothing to do with him...like velo said...he was just the first one through the door to be both dumb and unlucky...that doesn't make a good rallying cry though.

1. I didn't ignore it, I just didn't comment on it. But, yes, I did see it - perhaps I should have stated the observation/assumption in my first post.

2. The absolutes from the arson investigator did raise an eyebrow, but what really caught my attention was Justice Anton Scalia. He really is way out there. How can you have fairness in the system when that is what you get from the Supreme Court?

3. To generate action, you need to start with awareness. At this stage, Floyd and I have a similar goal with his website - get attention. He should send me a commission fee.

Dave.

Throughout the Floyd case I made an effort to be objective and take a critical look not only at Floyd's defence but also at what we saw of the anti-doping system. Even though there were signs that the lab showed signs of imperfection on the administrative side, I really had the feeling that the result of the testing was conclusive.

Of course Floyd's presentation of the anti-doping system was full of obvious distortion and manipulation of the facts so it wasn't always easy to see through that. I also admit that I start with a presumption that there is an excellent chance that he could have been doping given the context (don't forget that t-mobile was sending their riders to Frieburg for blood refills at the same time they were throwing Ullrich to the wolves).

In the end, I had the feeling that despite all the huffing and puffing about how the "science" would get Floyd off, his high priced lawyers came to the hearing with nothing concrete to present and their "experts" were not credible. USADA almost gave Floyd a break, it was the CAS that cut through the bs and told it like it was.

Is the anti-doping process too closed and impartial towards conviction? I tend to think not, and there have been enough cases where athletes have gotten off to make me comfortable that they do not have a win at all costs attitude.

No system of justice is perfect, but this is no reason to abandon the cause. I suppose the possibility for a false conviction exists, just like in the real world, but I am convinced this isn't Floyd's case and I haven't seen any other case that leaves me with any doubt.

At the same time that I have little or no sympathy for Floyd, I would have liked for him to have taken a much different approach so that I could see him in a better light. Maybe someday he will see the error of his ways.

My stance has always been that the authorities never proved that Floyd doped. They didn't. We can all fill in the blanks to create our own version of events, but at the end of the day, the job of the ADA is to prove that the athlete doped. They failed by any scientific standard which you choose to adopt.

If it were just about our own personal predjudices, every winner of the Tdf would be a potential doper for you, and a hero for me. I guess the ADA's think more like you and less like me. Is that good or bad ? I think bad. From a scientific point of view, it's always better to start from a neutral position (as opposed to a Dick Pound position)

The ADAs failed in this case.

how about armstrong's position when he informed authorities that the spanish riders had a new form of epo? neutral enough?

I would imagine that you have to replace the carpet or flooring in front of your computer on a regular basis.

His name and reputation were illegally tarnished via the media leaks and Pound's presumption of guilt before the results of the b-sample were even known. The only way to defend oneself (and try and repair one's reputation) is to do it in a public way.

It easy to armchair QB this decision because he was found guilty. Fact is most crisis PR specialist (like Michael Hensen that FL hired) would tell you the only way to fight this is by going public.

Lastly turn it around. If FL disappeared off the face of the map for 14 months and then one day in September 2007 a press release comes out that a AAA hearing found him innocent, Without thousand of pages of testimony and scientific information, the LNDD/USADA/WADA could have easily painted this as a technicality and the world press would have viewed him like Landaluce ... a doper that tricked the system. Under this scenario, he still loses.

Boy ORG, you make this easy. You are way off-base, and appear to be demonstrating the ongoing cognitive dissonance that tries to turn a wrong into a right. These statements are in complete denial of basic and inarguable facts.


Who was responsible for the media leak, and who thus 'illegally tarnished his name and reputation'?

Phonak confirms Landis positive

If this was "illegal", then why didn't Floyd once complain about the team. How about for wrongful dismissal? After all, not only did they "leak" the A Result to the media

Landis B-sample positive: Fired by Phonak


Right, just like Tiger's apology? Maybe Tiger should have told Erin to 'Play by the Rules' instead.

Ever since Tylenol showed the way, the best way to overcome a negative is to come clean quickly. This is classic PR. Toyota is killing itself by doing a partial.

The truth is there wasn't much to tarnish anyways. But, by going negative Floyd turned this whole situation negative.


Dream on.

Floyd doped. He ran a foolish PR campaign under the misguided notion that he could fool everyone and that he, himself, was some sort of gift to professional cycling. He couldn't fool anyone - well almost anyone - and is not as important as he thinks he is, and never was.

Dave.

Read you own link ... it says the UCI said a rider tested positive. Someone then leaked it was a S17 result. McQuaid said it was "the worst case scenario." The story was already out and Phonak Confirmed the leak story, they did not creat it.




Try Labor secretary Ray Donvoan that was trashed in the 1980s by leaks. Then he was found innocent and matched out of court and ask "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

Give Me Back My Reputation!

Donavon followed your advice. Problem is he was actually innocent.

"I also admit that I start with a presumption that there is an excellent chance that he could have been doping given the context "

Good points.

As to the context of it, in addition, Frankie and JV had text messages that they thought would never see the light of day (literally, they were written in the middle of the night for Frankie), were JV states that the drugs were coming in through motorcycle messengers and that Landis had taken pictures.

This obviously is not enough to legally indict, but given the source and context in which it came out - via legal discovery, and that neither of the two ever later said that the information was wrong, I agree with Frenchfry that the context in which his Floyd's doping issue is looked at, outside of the actual scientific process which is beyond the understanding of most of us - well, it is fairly damming.

I'll bet you dollars-to-dimes Floyd still has those pictures. Given what is now his years of persistent denial, and his seemingly combative character, I doubt that he would do a turn about and confess any time soon, or make the pictures public.

I do wonder, if he took the time to take pictures of the panniers, what else he may have taken pictures of?
I am sure that Johan and Lance were not happy to have heard about his Kodak moment.

ORG, wtf are you talking about?

1. Link

Here is the entire clip from that link:

Phonak confirms Landis positive

Latest Cycling News for July 27, 2006
Edited by Jeff Jones, with assistance from Susan Westemeyer

The Phonak team has confirmed the speculation that Floyd Landis returned a positive A sample after his win in stage 17 of the Tour de France. "The Phonak Cycling Team was notified yesterday by the UCI about an unusual level of Testosterone/Epitestosterone ratio in the test made on Floyd Landis after stage 17 of the Tour de France," said the team in a statement. "The team management and the rider were both totally surprised of this physiological result.

"The rider will ask in the upcoming days for the counter analysis to prove either that this result is coming from a natural process or that this is resulting from a mistake in the confirmation. In application of the Pro Tour Ethical Code, the rider will not race anymore until this problem is totally clear.

"If the result of the B sample analysis confirms the result of the A sample, the rider will be dismissed and will then pass the corresponding endocrinological examinations."

The World Anti-Doping Agency has lowered the limit for the maximum T/E level from 6:1 to 4:1. Some athletes have naturally high levels, and can prove this through a series of tests

There is no reference to McQuaid in that citation. There is nothing about any leaks in this article or the other link that I provided.

Just like Floyd, you are making accusations that have NO basis in fact.

2. Ray Donovan =/= Floyd.

Floyd was not trashed by leaks. Nobody leaked that Floyd specifically had tested positive until this was announced by Phonak. Nobody.

With respect to McQuaid's statement - which is found in neither of the links I provided - when he made that statement, I, for one, did not know what he was talking about. Honest.

The 'worst case scenario' could have meant a number of things. Just having a positive, any positive, in the Tour seems to be the threshold for McQuaid based on his promise of no positives in this past year's Tour.

The statement could have also meant that someone asscoated with O.P. tested positive, etc.

Particularly given that O.P. had just broken before the Tour, this seemed the more probable explanation at the time. Besides, I believe that the UCI does have the right - or at least has exercised this right in the past - to notify if there have been any doping positives.

Obviously Floyd could have interpreted this personally, but that is not the only reasonable explanation. And, why would Floyd interpret it that way if he were not guilty?

If you are right, which I do not agree with, then McQuaid was the source of the "Illegal" leak. So, why didn't Floyd sue him? Your argument isn't backed up by any obvious action. In fact, didn't Howard Jacobs - who now owns a share of the Landis former 'fortune' - promise us he would pursue the UCI. Not WADA, but the UCI?

Landis's attorney, Howard Jacobs, has indicated his team will not only challenge the result, which revealed a high testosterone:epitestosterone ratio after Stage 17 of the Tour de France, but also the alleged lack of protocol followed by the UCI - namely, the premature announcement of the A sample finding, and the anonymous UCI source

As with the JD & Beer, the super-metabolism, the cortisone conversion and the freakish horomone production nonsense - all of the defense was BS from the start.

Why are you targeting Dick Pound? He didn't 'leak' anything, and he didn't run the lab or conduct any tests personally. In fact, Dick wasn't even the first person to use the motorcycle analogy for Floyd's performance. Nor was Dick the first person to call Floyd Roid.

In defense of Pat McQuaid's alleged statement (defending McQuaid being unusual for me), there were many speculations by many different papers

From CyclingNews.com

On the other hand, La Gazzetta dello Sport reports that the positive was for a stimulant, it happened in the last week, and involved an important rider "high up in the classification".

Both newspapers, in addition to several other European news outlets, are drawing on circumstantial events involving the Tour's overall winner, Floyd Landis.

Apparently, Landis was supposed to have competed in a post-Tour criterium in Chaam in The Netherlands on Wednesday night, but did not race, citing hip problems. He left the hotel at 4:30pm with team manager John Lelangue, and also cancelled a criterium appointment in Denmark for today (Thursday).

His sudden withdrawal surprised race organisers, as it's understood the regular appearance fee at a post-Tour criterium for the reigning yellow jersey is 60,000 euros.
...
"We've never experienced a situation that a 'topper' hasn't shown up without officially cancelling,"

What really fueled the speculation about 'Roid' was that he did not show up for the post-Tour Criterium - a universal sign of doping guilt.

You appear to be grasping for straws here. And, again, the facts appear to be inarguable.

And, as noted previously, there wasn't much of a reputation to damage anyways. Floyd had little or no marketing value.

The prevailing wisdom even before the positive test was that Floyd's 'fame' would have very little tangible value. Could this at least partially be due to the fact that he had an extremely modest race resume prior to the miracle on S17?

Landis’s Marketing Appeal Already Had Its Limits

Floyd is a doper, and a sore loser. Any value he had has been squandered by himself.

And you appear to be misguided.

Dave.

No, it's not.