Verdict is in on Landis

**Asphaltgirl** · 09-20-2007, 09:59 AM

AP is reporting that Landis has received a 2 year ban for doping and must forfeit the 2006 Tour de France title. I really had hoped that he was one of the few honest ones left in the sport. Reality check

~AG~

finishing is winning

**limewave** · 09-20-2007, 10:02 AM

Bummer.

**teigyr** · 09-20-2007, 10:12 AM

Bad, I hope he fights it. I don't think a guilty verdict means he's guilty. I hope he isn't guilty and I still believe him.

Same as how a not-guilty verdict means someone is innocent....cough...ahem...OJ...

**chutch** · 09-20-2007, 10:13 AM

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...ep07/sep21news

**rij73** · 09-20-2007, 10:36 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/spor...-Decision.html

**Triskeliongirl** · 09-20-2007, 10:38 AM

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/...ope.php?page=2

**NJBikeGal** · 09-20-2007, 10:53 AM

I have to second teigyr's statement...still doesn't mean he did it. I know how naive I am being...but I said it since day one and will continue to say it, something is certainly screwy with the whole issue. Imagine if this were a criminal trial...they would have thrown this case out more quickly than you can say O.J.! Anyway...I may be naive, but I like the guy, he put up an amazing fight, and I hope he comes back in two years to whomp some butt, a la David Millar! GO FLOYD!

**Hub** · 09-20-2007, 11:03 AM

Phree Phloyd- I still think he's great

**Grog** · 09-20-2007, 12:46 PM

Doesn't mean he's not great, just that he's been convicted of doping.

I admire those of you who can still believe that one can survive the grueling treatment of a race like the Tour de France at an average speed of 40 km/h and not need doping, especially for winning. I do not think it is possible. Which doesn't mean that the athletes doing it are not spectacular athletes. I actually feel quite sorry for them.

--

I find this story funny. Quoting (or paraphrasing) a sports doctor I know, who's better kept anonymous, but who's seen numerous cases of doping: "Landis at some point said that his high testosterone was due to heavy drinking the night before. That was true! He had one too many whiskeys, went to bed drunk, and forgot to remove his testosterone patch before falling asleep!"

Supposedly, if they're taken off after only a few hours, the patches deliver enough testosterone to help with recovery, but not so much that the artificial testosterone will be detectable the next day.

The above-quoted doctor had had a few drinks at the moment of uttering that statement, which made it funnier.

**maillotpois** · 09-20-2007, 12:54 PM

Read the dissent:

http://ia341242.us.archive.org/0/ite...rd20-09-07.pdf

**snapdragen** · 09-20-2007, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by maillotpois

Read the dissent:

http://ia341242.us.archive.org/0/ite...rd20-09-07.pdf

Wow.

I do hope he appeals. (He can appeal, right?)

**maillotpois** · 09-20-2007, 04:50 PM

I think he can appeal to the Court for Arbitration in Sport.

**Skierchickie** · 09-20-2007, 05:27 PM

Sigh......

I wanna believe.....sigh......

I think I'll just naively keep believing it was all a mistake, and he didn't really do it, and hang on to the hope there there are true sports heroes out there, in the sports I care about.

**PinkBike** · 09-20-2007, 05:42 PM

great dissenting report, it's all the things that are in his book.

i too think he was falsely convicted. forget all the errors in the procedures and the handling and the privacy issues and the WADA rules against testifying negatively, yadayadayada, forget ALL THAT and you STILL have the fact that other (read: better) labs would not have called his test positive.

i believe him. i know i am a little gullible, i believed tyler until the puerta affair brought him up again.

but after reading his book, and just the common sense of it - that testosterone does not work overnight so (a) why would he do it for one stage or (b) why wasn't it in any of his other tests? - i totally think he is innocent.

i hope he gets a fair shake on appeal. but if the process for appeal is anything like the process for the testing - the same lab that tests the A sample also tests the B sample - why would i expect this process to have any kind of non-bias against the athlete? or any accountability for poor performance?

and why does the 2-year ban commence in january 2007 when he hasnt been able to race since july 2006?

**Jo-n-NY** · 09-21-2007, 04:38 AM

I believe in everything you said Pinkbike. Floyd got a raw deal here, although I am not surprised. Why would the USADA want to ruin their reputation of finding all the cases brought to them concluding with "guilty".

I have ZERO faith in USADA & WADA even before this all began. It would be nice for someone to dissect them.

~ JoAnn

Thread: Verdict is in on Landis

Thread Tools

Display

Verdict is in on Landis

Posting Permissions