Floyd Landis

nns1400

In reply to the original question...no. He looks like an angry leprechaun.

__________________
If someone really bothers you, think about walking a mile in their shoes...then, you'll be a mile away, and you'll have their shoes.

C'dale Girl

You and I basically agree. But, it is wrong for all people arguing about procedural issues to be lumped into the fandom category. And yes, the procedural issues and "doper" issues are separate and distinct, which was exactly what I was saying. But I was also saying that too many cycling fans, especially those most vocal anti-doping cycling fans, cannot seem to recognize that very important distinction. The procedural arguments tend to fall on deaf ears. You can tell that when you read the follow up posts with counter-arguments. The counter-posts rarely acknowledge the procedural arguments and instead cry many variations of "he's a doper."

C'dale Girl

There is no allowance for mild doping, despite the test threshold quantities, which effectively permit it if you're really good at measuring your dosages. If someone is caught poking a syringe full of tesosterone into their arm, it doesn't matter whether he can still pass the test. Obviously Floyd didn't get caught pushing the syringe full of dope into his vein, but my point is that any doping of banned substances contravenes rules. The thresholds are in place to allow for natural variation and testing errors. However there is NO natural variation of synthetic testosterone in anyone's body, unless it was put there.

I am one of those who believe in innocence until proven guilty. I am against capital punishment. I hate today's tabloid trials in the media, which must have an effect on the judgment, despite efforts to shield jurors. Shawshank Redemption is one of my favorite films. Sometimes I have trouble sleeping at night thinking about all those people who have been falsely incarcerated and/or executed. But take a look at the evidence here guys. What is the probability of two false positives on SYNTHETIC testosterone? Notwithstanding the chances of five out of five testosterone false positives from IRMS tests on his other race samples, which weren't even used as evidence.

Also, can someone explain to me a plausible explanation/motive for why Lemond would have lied under oath about what Floyd told him? I am struggling to see how Lemond would kill his friend's TdF win, reputation and career just to falsely notch another rider as a doper.[/QUOTE]

C'dale Girl

This goes back to what TFF said in another thread about a month ago. It's goes to one's perceptions of truth and facts given the influences of their personal opinions and impressions. Some loyal Floyd fans insist that the truth is that Floyd didn't dope; others insist the truth is that he did dope. In the process of legitimizing their personal beliefs and twisting them to be their own personal truth, they view the very same facts very differently. This is how you end up with the battle of the experts in a case . . . one side finds an expert to say one thing, the other side finds an expert to say the exact opposite. Those experts' perceptions and opinions regarding the truth and the facts as they see them, in application to the very same event, are polar opposite.

Well, if you read the transcript, LeMond did not testify that Floyd said exactly what you said he said (in a previous post of yours). Again, this goes to one's perceptions based on one's personal views. There is room for varying interpretation of what Floyd said to LeMond, according to LeMond's testimony. I don't have a copy of it now, and it's been awhile, and I really just don't care enough to try and locate it now.

Also, I think you have the facts wrong about Floyd and LeMond being friends (another example of perceptions of facts based on personal views and predispositions). Instead, I've only heard statements indicating they were strangers who both happened to have the commonality of being American TdF winners. They spoke on that basis alone to my understanding, only a couple of times in total.

And, I do not mean any of this as a judgment or criticism of you individually, whatsoever. It is human nature in general, that nobody can get away from, which is why I made my initial statement about the truth being somewhere in the middle.

alienator

That's a key point that has continually been overlooked. There are few facts in the case, and what facts are alleged are questionable.

As to your comments earlier re: procedural errors, well, those procedural errors are some of the few facts. Everyone looking to nail a doper is willing to overlook wrongly recorded numbers or lapses or violations of procedural error. Of course, it's easy to do that when your life or livelihood isn't on the line. I wonder how comfy people would be having incorrectly labeled bags of blood infused. How cozy would folks be if they picked up a prescription and saw that the pharmacist had whited out the label and written over it?

It's certainly scientifically questionable to have a lab do B sample testing once it's already done A sample testing. Different labs should be used. In fact, there should be a rotation of labs for all tests. Having all these procedural errors documented only highlights why the same lab shouldn't be used to ultimately verify or disprove the original tests.

Again, it's dead easy to sit back and poo poo procedural errors when you're not the one who'll suffer any untoward consequences. And it's sadly ironic to think that people who are doing the poo pooing think that doping will ever be reduced with such sloppy procedure. No, what will happen will be that some innocent rider, or more riders, will be railroaded for The Cause. Who knows, it's entirely possible that it's already happened. We're finding out that such mistakes have been made in our justice system, so what makes the doping punishment scheme any less susceptible?

No one knows what LeMond's motivation was or is. Given arguments put up by the rabid anti-doping fans, LeMond was likely a doper since he claims to have not doped. Of course, the rabid won't see it that way because of their own, special hypocrisy.

Another salient point made was that people who question or doubt the Floyd outcome aren't necessarily Floyd fans. They're just as likely to be reasonable people. The idea that they have to be fans is stupid on its face and follows no logic at all.

C'dale Girl

Agreed on all points. Just as I agreed with Bro. I can agree with both of you because I'm on the outside looking in, without any emotional attachment or investment to any of the parties/sides involved. You both made very real observations about "the other side" of the argument.

Crankyfeet

The arbitrators found Floyd to be guilty of doping...and they also found the laboratory processes to be somewhat shoddy.

On the question of truth: IMO opinion you are mixing up real truth and opinions of the truth. Truth is independent of opinion. Yes...the real truth can lie between peoples opinions of the truth in general. But the only truth that is important in this case is whether he doped or not. It is a one...or a zero. He didn't partially use PED's. As an analogy... if someone's pregnancy is up for trial...either the yays or the nays are going to be "the truth". The truth won't be somewhere in between. It was not a trial to determine who was at fault in a car accident.

On Lemond: Floyd called up Lemond shortly after the scandal broke out for advice. You can make up your own mind as to their relationship. Its really inconsequential. Why would Lemond invent testimony that effectively murders Floyd's cycling career and name?

Nearly everyone agrees that the dope testing process was less than perfect. I am also in agreement with alienator's point that it is disgusting that they would be so careless with a process that effectively can kill someone's career. But the testing process wasn't on trial. It was used by the defense to cast doubt on the results. The question is: Despite being a mitigating factor in some of the reults, did it invalidate all the condemning evidence. The arbitrators decision was that it didn't.

The point was made that those who think he should have been found not guilty based on the evidence aren't neccessarily Floyd supporters. That point also extends to those who believe he is guilty. They are not neccessarily of the opinion that there were not flaws in some of the laboratory processes/handling.

I think it is wrong to assume all those who agree with the decision are prejudiced by The Cause. I was a big Floyd supporter initially. I don't see any point in falsely condemning anybody for The Cause. Labelling those who agree that he was guilty as prejudiced is about as logical as saying that those that disagree he was guilty are all anti-establishment conspiracy theorists. Polarizing and pigeon-holing truth seekers into extreme camps is an unfortunate habit in America it seems.

Now that I have had the last word on this, we can close up this thread (unless someone wants to agree with me). Any further argument would obviously be viewed as clutching at straws....

Crankyfeet

An interesting interview today from Velonews posted by helmutRoole2 for those interested in the Flandis affair.

Oruboris

Dunno about the 'Hottie' issue, but I tend to trust Landis more than the French lab or LeMond, who seems to believe no American [other than himself, of couse] could possibly win the tour without doping, and whose testimony was very damagining to Lands.

poulidor

Are you speaking from Floyd Landis the guy who was able to beat the blood doped riders of TMob?