Hip, "Halffast Celebrity Fashionista"
I'm guessing DocRay's firstborn will now be named Elvis Kennedy.
This line sounds like it's straght out of one of DR's posts: "It's like this; If you have the facts pound the facts. If you have the truth pound the truth. If you have neither, just pound."
Hip, do you now see that this book is what Floyd wants you to believe? That analysis by Kennedy is out-and-out damning in a lot of ways to Floyd's honest-boy image.
"When the doping topic came up among riders, I never engaged in the conversation. To me it was boring" (p. 196). I simply can't buy this statement. You ride a bike just about your whole life. Your business, your job, your livelihood is riding your bike. To claim to never have had a conversation about the single most prominent aspect (currently) of your chosen career is either a lie or just plain stupid. Sweeping statements like this serve one purpose, and that is to avoid discussing what you knew and when you knew it, and about who. Let me ask you, dear reader; When a pro cyclist claims to never have had a conversation about doping, can you believe him? It's one thing to claim to never have done dope, but to never have spoken of it?
The thing that's most difficult to believe for me is Landis' assertion that he never was aware of any other rider using PED's.
30 or more of his contemporaries proven to dope, and he had no idea any of it was going on?
Did this person even read the book?
Reread the section on his training with Allen Lim. You really get a good idea not only of his day-to-day training, but also of how he used a power meter to achieve all his goals. He also talked about his brother-in-law following him in a car for training, using an altitude tent, etc. There's a LOT of info on his training and what it's all like. He even included some info on training with Discovery.You will not learn the in's and out's of training.
As to his other comments:
1. It is entirely possible to not have heard of the TDF as a small town mountain biker. For one, the mountain bike mags (has this guy even read one?) NEVER mention the TDF. It's a completely diff. world. The two cultures are completely diff. The mountain bike world Floyd was in has more to do with the "X Games" than with road racing.
2. Vaughters alleged IM conversation. First off, this has nothing to do with the 2002 stage that the reviewer brings up here (as the IM conversation refers to 2004) so no idea why he connects the two but even with that, Vaughters has denied the conversation is real and it didn't stand up in court. Why then would Landis put it in his book, bringing up that alleged (and Vaughters-denied) conversation?
3. Lying about his hip. It is a valid point that he did not tell his team BUT two points on that:
* He states that had he not been able to train adequately from the start, he would inform the team.
This makes total sense because if he can train, it's a non-issue. If not, then he lets them know
before any race rosters are made (for the races he'd be in). I see no problem with that.
* There is not a single pro athlete who has not, at one time or another, hid an injury and played
through it. It's the nature of the game. It's like people who go to work when they're sick with
a contagious illness but they don't want to risk losing their job (perhaps there are possible firings
hanging over the place - which is the life of a pro athlete).
4. Ferrari. I don't know if this guy has ever visited Ferrari's website, read "Lance Armstrong's War" or any of the papers Ferrari has written, but aside from the doping-advice-crap, the guy's a genius. He's had some amazing discoveries for cyclists and endurance athletes (including the 6.7 watts/kg with another scientist and the fast-cadence). If you believe Dan Coyle, Ferrari's the one who came up with Lance's fast cadence by studying the top African marathon runners' strides. There's some good science behind it. He does advocate doping (he's admitted he thinks that if it makes an athlete "better" that he sees no harm) which is crap, I agree, but that doesn't mean he's not also an amazing trainer with some brilliant ideas.
5. landis being ok with kicking off OP teammates. Valid point. Although, when Landis was kicked off Phonak, he had no problem with that. His problem was with the test results and the UCI/LNDD's handling of the information, etc. He never blamed Rhis or anyone on Phonak and even wrote a letter saying that he was sad they had to go through all this. He was fine (at the time) with being removed from Phonak. Still, it is a valid point.
6. Landis left the team to go secretly to california for his hip. OK, but he never missed a doping control so it's not really an issue.
7. Landis complained about riders being held out of TDF without evidence. No problem with this. In fact, Contador, the new champ, was found innocent after being held out of the TDF. Assuming you believe the authorities who found him innocent, that is a travesty of justice.
8. Dr. Chao being in his hotel room shows that he had access to cheat. This is idiotic. ASO, WADA and UCI all knew the doctors were there and that he was receiving cortisone for his hip. I'm sure they were monitored as a result of this allowed medical exemption.
9. Landis never joined in doping conversations. I see no problem with this. Why would you talk about something that can only distract you from your job, and possibly say something bad that can come back to bite you. it reminds me of people I've worked with who are complaining about either the client, the boss, etc and if you don't join in, they don't trust you anymore and put you on the outside. If you DO join in, it ruins your love of the job and frequently can come back to bite you in the ass for some coment you made. It's a no-win situation.
10. Landis saying he didn't use performance-enhancing drugs is not good enough because he could have blood doped. This is just stupid and irrelevant. Landis tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug. If he says he didn't take any, then he's answered ALL the accusations against him.
11. Landis said that the lab would make the same mistake on B as A and this means every rider would test positive. Well, not quite. I do agree that Landis' logic was a bit faulty here but so is the reviewers. The mistake they made might require certain blood types, substances in the blood, or whatever contaminated the sample. If they make the mistake every time, it might not have the same effect. Both are wrong.
12. Says the point is not whether Lance cheated but that they never caught him. Valid to question Floyd's logic here. I understand he's saying that if Lance cheated then the tests aren't accurate but his statement also leaves the door wide open to the thought that the tests do work and that's why Landis was caught and Armstrong was not.
13. Landis says no good comes from rooting in the past and Landis is protecting Lance. I actually think Landis is right. instead of wasting time and money going after Lance, shouldn't they be spending that on today's situation? And remember, going back to test old ANONYMOUS samples is not rooting in the past. There's a diff. Also, Landis does not protect Lance. He's actually less than complimentary of him throughout the book.
14. Landis being friends with Geoghegan tells us that Landis must be just as evil and underhanded because you can accurately judge a person by their friends. This is an inaccurate suggestion at best. However, even if it could prove that Landis was a jerk towards people it doesn't prove cheating. There are plenty of criminals with morals about specific issues. Trashing others does not prove cheating. It's entirely possible to have respect only for achieving personal improvement and none for other people.
15. Landis says he told Will he had to go but the next day he was sitting behind Landis. A valid point on the "firing". I do want to know more on this. (Again,. it doesn't prove cheating but it is an important point to get the truth on)
16. Landis didn't want the other 7 samples tested. FALSE. he didn't want them tested by LNDD. He was fine with UCAL or another lab testing them. It doesn't prove anything that LNDD found they confirmed their other findings since the issue at hand here is that Landis claims LNDD's testing is faulty or maliciously inaccurate. Having LNDD confirm their own findings proves nothing either way.
17. Landis' claim that bacteria ruined his sample are wrong because Landis couldn't have ridden as he did with bacteria. Wow, this misses the point entirely. He's NOT saying HE had bacteria. he's saying the lab did not follow proper procedures and let either the sample in the tube or the machine get contaminated.
I'd say the reviewer has maybe 2-3 valid points and that's it. he was disingenuous throughout, inaccurate, misleading and wrong in so many places. What a poor job.
afterall, i'm not actually 100% certain that anyone in my office goes #2 in the bathroom. i've never actually seen someone do it, or talk about it. but i suspect they might be doing it based on odor, noise, and other indirect evidence.... is that being aware?
It "stood up" in court in that it was allowed into evidence and on record. Vaughters has said he "exaggerated" some portions, which has a bit of the endemic "I don't recall" that has permeated our government officials current testimony.
If you have contradictory information, please forward the sources, hopefully it's something beyond one of the many reviews/spin cycles that swirl around this question.
In general I think his points are useful. A good starting point would be for each point to start half way between his spin and Floyds spin and then think (yea really think) about which way to move you opinion form there.
But that said I have real problems with this one (bolding mine).
First off why should Floyd or anyone else, even Lance, have to make a huge legalistic statement every time they open their mouth? Sorry but Floyds statement is pretty clear. I could not make the statement I never used a substance or technique that is prohibited by any team or race for two reasons and I would not trust anyone who could. First because I know I have! Guess what I've gotten really banged up a few times. I know some of the pain killers are banned. I'm also alergic to bee stings, meds for that are banned also! The second is I do not know the rules of every team or race. But there has got to be a Mormon team somewhere! Both Floyd and I have had a beer, BUSTED! Do the rules about gearing for youth teams count? If so both Floyd and I have turned prohibited gears. Any bets some races prohibit some decending techniques for safety reasons?10) "I did not use performance-enhancing drugs in the 2006 Tour de France or any other time in my career" (p. 196-197). Sounds good, right? Wrong! What about blood doping? That's not a performance enhancing drug. What about testosterone? Is it a performance enhancer or simply something to aid in recovery? Define career; just during races or since that day you signed your first pro contract? The list goes on. I find it curious how careful pro riders are when they say things like this. It's like Lance telling us on and on and on, ad nauseum, that he's never failed a drug test. It's meaningless. How about this, " I (pro cyclist name here) have never used nor am I using now, any technique or any substance that was or is prohibited by any cycling team, cycling race or cycling governing body. I have never used any substance or technique that would serve to mask or otherwise hide my use of any of the aforementioned. Further, I have not, am not and never will use any substance that I believe (or wish) will give me any advantage over any other cyclist (assuming no other cyclist is using such substance). If any medical condition requires the use of any prohibited substance as a treatment, I will refrain from entering any race until such time that I have been off of the treatment for a minimum of thirty days. As testament to all of the aforementioned, I hereby authorize the cycling authorites to take up to two pints of my blood (over the next six months) , as much urine and as many tissue samples in which to use now or at any time in the future for the purposes of determining my claims herein. If future tests become available that can show the use of prohibitive techniques or substances, so be it. I also authorize authorities to use any blood, urine or tissue samples currently on file to determine if I had ever used any prohibited substances in past races". I'm sure that I can clean this up but hey, I'm in the middle of a book review and it''s the middle of the night.
The way this is worded I couldn't use ginsing if no other cyclist used it. My personal mix of amino acids and clover (not orange) honey would be prohibited. But EPO is fine until it is explicitly banned as long as one other cyclist (hmm one on my team?) uses it also.
Thirty days after using any med? Let's go back to bee stings. I get stung in the wrong place where swelling would restrict the airway on stage 19 of the TDF. Tour over. And about 35 more days in total.
And finally blood samples. Sorry 2 pints is a major blow to a cyclist. Even if done only during training this would hurt, but during a Tour or a few days before a single day race and the rider in guestion is at a real disadvantage at even a couple of vials taken.
Vaughters is being 'economical with the truth'. These clowns know what goes on, as does anyone who races or raced as a pro.
Last edited by classic1; 08-22-07 at 07:41 PM.
It is clear beyond cavil that Ullrich doped, Riis doped, Basso doped, Rasmussen broke doping rules, Vino doped, Heras doped etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,
But yet many believe no way Landis, with multiple positive tests, doped. Just because you want to believe it doesn't make it so
Last edited by merlinextraligh; 08-22-07 at 08:09 PM.
picking at one detail at a time is useless, take a look at all the evidence as a whole........read all the books, listen to all the interviews like here:
pull out all the tour footage from 1993-2007 and take note of these guys performances
then make up your mind
I like book reports that are almost as long as the book
I like book reports written by a person that does not understand the subject matter.
Don's post is way better than the "professional's" report...
"Nothing is so typical of middling minds than to harp on the intellectual deficiencies of the slightly less smart, but considerably more successful."
Bret Stephens, WSJ
Reacting is mind candy; it requires no thought. Thinking is tedious.
Bikeforums 'Group Buy': Kinlin Rims, Sapim/DT Spokes, Formula/Bitex Hubs
"The only good race pace is suicide pace, and today looks like a good day to die."
i dont know what disclaimer I like better.
The "I never tested positive" or the "I have never knowingly taken PEDs."
That could make a good poll topic.