Finally Over?

[NJBikeGal]

Is this it? Is the Floyd Landis case finally at an end? I have no idea why, but I still believe the guy is innocent. Ahh...naive youth! Anyway...since his suspension is only for another 5 months, maybe we'll see him back on a bike, a-la David Millar, and racing again soon!

[Aggie_Ama]

My husband and I still believe him as well. Don't know why, I just don't think he did it.

[DDH]

Call me naive but I still believe him too. Maybe it's just that I want to believe someone is honest and true to thier sport.
I just think there were to many questionable things about the testing to really believe that he doped.

[OakLeaf]

My biggest problem with the whole thing? His excuse (that he drank a whole bunch of alcohol the night before the stage and the test). What kind of athlete does that??? It makes everything else he says incredible. If I have one beer it noticeably affects my performance the next day. (Or it would be more accurate to say, that if I go without alcohol for a week, I notice the improvement , and after that, the first drink is noticeable.)

To me - and I hate to open up a whole 'nother can of worms - it has a lot in common with the O.J. Simpson case. You take a guy that's probably guilty, and instead of working for an honest conviction, the authorities try to frame him, and it ruins the whole case. The only difference here is that they don't have the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I want to believe Floyd, but I just can't.

[smilingcat]

I'm starting to have my doubts about UCI and WADA in general.

But the thing that's really getting my panty to be all knotted up is WADA may want to go after Landis for their legal expense? Break my leg!!

So you appeal and you lose. so you get hit with a suspension. Can't really work now as a racer and oh BTW, you can pay our legal expense too. wink wink wink. This is black mail. You can't work as a racer but pay $1million?? How? IT WILL put a significant damper on anyone who may want to contest the test result.

One thing that has always bugged me is that the test results are compared against the average person. Not someone of this athletic caliber. The pro riders are there for a reason. They won the genetic jackpot for having superior ahletic ability. Along with it, I would expect that what is normal for these athlete is way off the chart compared to the average person.

Average person do not have resting heart rate under 40.
Average person does not have similar lung capacity far from it.
Average person can not sustain even the half the power output of these athletes.

So wouldn't ya think something is different about their body chemistry like having too much testosterone? or too high a red cell count? Something has to be way out there or else any average guy with the right training could be riding in the Tour. To think otherwise about the makeup of these athlete is just plain DUMB!!

I am so sick of UCI and WADA

----------
the content of the link provided by sarah was changed so no mention of WADA might go after Landis for their legal fees.

smilingcat

[PscyclePath]

I'm a chemist by educational background, and work in the environmental field (hazardous substance site cleanups) where we take a lot of samples and measurements of contaminant concentrations.

In simple words, a measurement is only as good as the ruler you use to make it. And in the case of the French lab which ran the samples, they botched both the job, and the paperwork to document it. And if your quality control measures don't match, you can't use the results as any sort of conclusive fact. The initial decision by the California panel was flawed in that while they discounted the results of the initial test, they said the follow-on test using isotopic ratios as sufficient proof of synthetic steroid. Legally, you can't do that -- it's called the "fruit of the poisoned tree" and if the initial screen is bogus, then you can't use the results of any follow-up of the invalid test. These panel arbitrations don't appear to be bound by the common law, though...

[mimitabby]

In simple words, a measurement is only as good as the ruler you use to make it. And in the case of the French lab which ran the samples, they botched both the job, and the paperwork to document it. And if your quality control measures don't match, you can't use the results as any sort of conclusive fact. The initial decision by the California panel was flawed in that while they discounted the results of the initial test, they said the follow-on test using isotopic ratios as sufficient proof of synthetic steroid. Legally, you can't do that -- it's called the "fruit of the poisoned tree" and if the initial screen is bogus, then you can't use the results of any follow-up of the invalid test. These panel arbitrations don't appear to be bound by the common law, though...

Exactly.

[DDH]

I wonder if public support helps him any? I have heard so much about how the samples were not legal to use, yet they used them, and have gotten away with it.
I don't want these guys using drugs, but how is someone suppose to prove their innocence (if they are) with them being able to use whatever they want and the Athlete unable to do anything about it.

Seems to me, it would keep good athlete from racing if they are going to take a chance of being accused and unable to defend themselves properly.

Maybe, I'm all wet, cause quite honestly I don't know that much about it, the chemistry or legalities of it, but it never has smelled right to me from the beginning.

[Zen]

I am so sick of UCI and WADA

-------

Me too.
I believe Floyd.

[OakLeaf]

So, you believe that Landis drank two beers and "at least four" shots of whiskey the night before that stage, and put on a performance like that???

I'm not saying I believe the UCI or the WADA. They're obviously incompetent or worse. That doesn't make Landis innocent.


ETA: It does mean he should've been exonerated and allowed to keep his victory. IMO they haven't met their burden of proof. But that's not the same as innocence.

[Zen]

Just my opinion, not prepping for a Supreme Court hearing.

[mamaof5]

I always believed him- but he was a big jerk at a race here in Colorado last year. Funny how that made a difference in my support for him. He was easier to cheer for when I thought of him as a nice, stand-up guy.

[li10up]

My heart wants to believe him but my head says, "No way!" As much as it pains me to say it - I think the guy doped.

[PinkBike]

My biggest problem with the whole thing? His excuse (that he drank a whole bunch of alcohol the night before the stage and the test). What kind of athlete does that??? . . . .The only difference here is that they don't have the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I want to believe Floyd, but I just can't.

this has never really bothered me. if i won a big stage and then was told i failed a doping test and I knew i hadn't done it i would be trying to figure it out in my head, too. what could it be? was it the drinking? did someone slip something in my bottle?

i also think that if i had proved the lab was errant - did you know that other labs would not have found that sample positive? - and you knew that UCI and WADA never lose no matter what - you might throw everything you had in to "muddle the waters."

his suspension ends 2009 but i think i read that he actually cant ride for a pro tour team for two MORE years (i dont know where i read that, i could be wrong).

mamaof5, i met him at the tour de california this year and found him to be very friendly and open.

i believe him. i think he didnt have a chance. they were never going to let him win.

[PinkBike]

oh, and in the original verdict, the opinion was not unanimous - it was 2-1 - the dissenting opinion was the more honest, i believe. so he basically lost his career and his income and his reputation by one vote.