Angry......As I sit here & type this, it's my overwhelming emotion,
Floyd....Oh I know we need to wait for 'B' samples & whatever other tests
need to be done.....but, (assuming that they will confirm the 'A' sample),
Floyd, how could you betray us all like this?. The stage 17 ride was
arguably one of THE GREATEST in any TDF, (dare I say, all Pro cycling),
history. The emotions that it stirred amongst this cycling fan were a
mixture of amazement & sheer joy at the human spirit, the 'have a go
attitude', a truly monumental day in cycling....it made me believe that
anything was possible, if you wanted it badly enough... & now we find out
that you were 'juiced'?....I'm angry Floyd....how dare you do this to the
sport, to the fans, to all those who hailed you as 'the new
beginning'.....how dare you. You are a fraud & a cheat....to use a good old
fashioned Aussie curse, "I hope ya chooks turn into emu's & kick ya dunny
down!"

lame

lame

seriously
All the B sample proves is that it was not a false positive. It in no way accounts for what could have just been a freak day in what is already a frewak of a human being. The guy's physiological stats are bizarre. The Testosterone to epistestoserone ratio is already way too close.

OMG!! :eek: NO!!! :eek: :eek:

Not the "I hope ya chooks turn into emu's & kick ya dunny down!" :eek:

You have really gone too far now! :D

OMG!! :eek: NO!!! :eek: :eek:

Not the "I hope ya chooks turn into emu's & kick ya dunny down!" :eek:

You have really gone too far now! :D


If you start crackin the Aussie jokes, Ill have to pull out the "illegal president line" :D

seriously
All the B sample proves is that it was not a false positive. It in no way accounts for what could have just been a freak day in what is already a frewak of a human being. The guy's physiological stats are bizarre. The Testosterone to epistestoserone ratio is already way too close.

Heres my problem:

These cyclists know the rules.
Sometimes they break the rules.
Then they question the rules?

How does that add up?
Its just not Landis, Hamilton has and a whole heap of other sports people.

"I hope ya chooks turn into emu's & kick ya dunny
down!"

Queens English please, what a foul useless thread to start, I am sure Floyd could give a rat's ***** what you think, his mother had to leave her home from the media that has invaded the community, and you think he is wooried how you feel. Give me a break.
A week ago he stirred your emotions, today because of a lame test you kick him when he is down, that is real class. You say we need to wait for the B sample and then start the name calling, I am sure more of us would consider you a fraud, not Floyd. I hope you have a good view of the emus from your high horse! I am ashamed for you....disgraceful!!!!!!!!!!!

A week ago he stirred your emotions, today because of a lame test you kick him when he is down, that is real class.


Why is the test lame? I'm sure that it was carried out with all care and following the proper procedures. You can't call the test lame just because it gives us a result that we'd rather not hear.

If the B sample confirms the A sample, there is good reason to be dissapointed. If what we thought was a testimony to superb athletic ability and hard work turns out to be the result of an illegal substance, we'll all be dissapointed. The amazing way Landis took back the time he lost may end up just being a great advertisement for whatever it was that he was on at the time.

I truly hope that the B sample is clear and that what we witnessed was an incredible athletic achievement, but it may well not be the case and wishing, unfortunately, will not make it so.

I am sure Floyd could give a rat's ***** what you think

I'm sure he doesn't...he obviously didn't give a rat's about anyone other than his own personal glory


his mother had to leave her home from the media that has invaded the community

I feel sorry for his mother, I am not the media...but perhaps he should of considered THIS consequence before he doped

You say we need to wait for the B sample and then start the name calling

you really believe the B sample is going to be different?

I am sure more of us would consider you a fraud, not Floyd.

oh, & how do you arrive at that insightful deduction...maybe I am a fraud, maybe I'm someone else entirely...but I'm not a drug cheat, nor have I ever defrauded other sports people out of prize money....can Floyd say the same?.....sorry my view doesn't correspond with yours...tough!

oh, & how do you arrive at that insightful deduction...maybe I am a fraud, maybe I'm someone else entirely...but I'm not a drug cheat, nor have I ever defrauded other sports people out of prize money....can Floyd say the same?.....sorry my view doesn't correspond with yours...tough!


uh uh You're unAustralian!!! Im sending Johnny round! :lol: :lol: :roflmao:

Your view doesn't correspond with your own, why "wait for the B" if you don't think it means anything why wait?

I am forming my opinion on the poll taken in the forum, 3 to 1 believe Floyd is innocent, we don't know you, did you throw the Astana 5 under the bus before they were cleared, bet not, but the guy who made you feel warm and fuzzy in your heart a week ago is now public enemy number 1. Don't apologize that you view doesn't correspond with mine...I am glad!

Your view doesn't correspond with your own, why "wait for the B" if you don't think it means anything why wait?

They must need that second test to check if the first is accurate, since they have declared that I am gravy with that.


I am forming my opinion on the poll taken in the forum, 3 to 1 believe Floyd is innocent, we don't know you, did you throw the Astana 5 under the bus before they were cleared, bet not, but the guy who made you feel warm and fuzzy in your heart a week ago is now public enemy number 1. Don't apologize that you view doesn't correspond with mine...I am glad!


With Astanan 5 there was no test positives were there? Its a different case. The evidence is operation Puerto is not the same as a positive test result. I havent said Landis is guilty, Im just waiting for the official result.

Don't apologize that you view doesn't correspond with mine...I am glad!

ahh, I see recognizing sarcasm is another of your weak points!

Why is the test lame? I'm sure that it was carried out with all care and following the proper procedures. You can't call the test lame just because it gives us a result that we'd rather not hear.

If the B sample confirms the A sample, there is good reason to be dissapointed. If what we thought was a testimony to superb athletic ability and hard work turns out to be the result of an illegal substance, we'll all be dissapointed. The amazing way Landis took back the time he lost may end up just being a great advertisement for whatever it was that he was on at the time.

I truly hope that the B sample is clear and that what we witnessed was an incredible athletic achievement, but it may well not be the case and wishing, unfortunately, will not make it so.

This was originally posted by AlanBikesHouston, and one of the problems I have with testing:

"WADA formerly had a standard for the T/E ratio for testosterone testing of 6:1. The average guy, on an average day, has a T/E ratio of around 1:1. But, among 1,000 guys, a few might have a T/E ratio of 4:1 and a rare guy might have a ratio of 5:1 or 6:1.

In 2005, WADA decided to lower the T/E standard from 6:1 to just 4:1, based on research showing that only a small percentage of men would violate the 4:1 ratio without some sort of artificial help.

Under the WADA standard, if the "A" sample exceeds the 4:1 ratio, then the "B" sample is tested. If the "B" sample also exceeds 4:1, the rider is asked to show the reason why. That reason could include that the rider's ratio was elevated by approved medication, or that the rider's own natural ratio sometime exceeds 4:1. If the rider does not provide an explanation for a ratio over 4:1, then he is deemed to have failed the test, and he is subject to discipline, and the results of the tests are made public.

In this case, the results of the Landis test was provided to the Times of London by someone "close" to the lab before the results were given to Landis and Landis allowed to respond. This is the same lab castigated recently for illegally giving confidential information about Lance Armstrong to the French press. When the lab got caught in the Armstrong case, they suspended an employee, and claimed the lab would clean up its act. Well, it looks like the lab needs a bigger broom.

Conspiracy? The Houston police lab was recently found to have been botching DNA tests that resulted in innocent men going to prison. It was just incompetence. But, amazingly, when the lab made an error, the error usually resulted in a "positive" for the exact same guy that the police had designated as the prime suspect. Given that there are over a million men in Houston, what were the odds of THAT happening? Naw...conspiracy theories are just silly... "

____________________________________________________________________________________

If 1:1 ratio and 6:1 ratio are both acceptable, the TEST shows that the results vary from rider to rider, and to say Floyd's ratio was too high after admitting that they fluctuate seems ridiculous. These tests seem to identify irregularites, not guilt, and to hang a man the way the have seems unfair. BTW why are these results released before the B sample is tested? Floyd will NEVER be able to clear himself after the A even if the B is negative, and was he tested after stage 17 because he won? Was he tested any other time during the tour? Is every stage winner tested?

ahh, I see recognizing sarcasm is another of your weak points!

ahh, I see recognizing charachter is another of your weak points!

There's a whole lot of info out and about and the sad thing is none of it should be yet since the B results are not yet in. Guilty or not Landis (and anyone else) did deserve to have his confidentiality respected as per the rules.

What's really pathetic is that the UCI went public b/c they "knew" (as stated in an interview in VeloNews) that the French lab would break confidentiality and leak the news!

That's horrible. I'll admit that the lab's inability to respect confidentiality doesn't mean they can't competently run dope tests but if the UCI knows this lab has a direct link to the press, why do they use it?

Since so much info is public anyways it's worth noting that Landis' overall testesterone level was below normal but the ratio of epitesterone to testesterone was way off. This has people who know a whole lot more about biochemistry than I do confused.

I'm not naive and am very bummed out over this but I'm willing to listen to Floyd as even I know a low testesterone level isn't much of a performance enhancer.

Excerpted from an interview with UCI President Pat McQuaid. Emphasis added by me.

http://velonews.com/news/fea/10594.0.html

"I had a call to inform me about Landis testing positive just as I was getting on the plane to come here yesterday," McQuaid said Thursday evening. "We decided to make an announcement right away because we have been criticized in the past for not doing so - particularly in the case of an important rider.

"Also, we know that the French laboratory [where the testing was done] has a close connection with [French sports daily] L'Équipe, and we did not want this news to come through the press, because we are sure they would have leaked it. "


I'm opposed to doping but if you can't follow your own due process and use outside agancies you can trust do you (the UCI) have any validity?

My criticism of the UCI stands her even if glossy black and whites of Floyd's 'nads covered with testesterone patches appear in the press later today.

How about the fact we create more TESTOSTERONE after tough physical efforts. Weight lifters use
this common knowledge in the sport to get bigger, by lifting heavy (like squats) the body creates testosterone which on the same token will create more muscle.
What if Floyd's testosterone level is just different, specially after a tough effort like stage 17?

Who are these people who run the test anyway, french ?

Corsaire



This was originally posted by AlanBikesHouston, and one of the problems I have with testing:

"WADA formerly had a standard for the T/E ratio for testosterone testing of 6:1. The average guy, on an average day, has a T/E ratio of around 1:1. But, among 1,000 guys, a few might have a T/E ratio of 4:1 and a rare guy might have a ratio of 5:1 or 6:1.

In 2005, WADA decided to lower the T/E standard from 6:1 to just 4:1, based on research showing that only a small percentage of men would violate the 4:1 ratio without some sort of artificial help.

Under the WADA standard, if the "A" sample exceeds the 4:1 ratio, then the "B" sample is tested. If the "B" sample also exceeds 4:1, the rider is asked to show the reason why. That reason could include that the rider's ratio was elevated by approved medication, or that the rider's own natural ratio sometime exceeds 4:1. If the rider does not provide an explanation for a ratio over 4:1, then he is deemed to have failed the test, and he is subject to discipline, and the results of the tests are made public.

In this case, the results of the Landis test was provided to the Times of London by someone "close" to the lab before the results were given to Landis and Landis allowed to respond. This is the same lab castigated recently for illegally giving confidential information about Lance Armstrong to the French press. When the lab got caught in the Armstrong case, they suspended an employee, and claimed the lab would clean up its act. Well, it looks like the lab needs a bigger broom.

Conspiracy? The Houston police lab was recently found to have been botching DNA tests that resulted in innocent men going to prison. It was just incompetence. But, amazingly, when the lab made an error, the error usually resulted in a "positive" for the exact same guy that the police had designated as the prime suspect. Given that there are over a million men in Houston, what were the odds of THAT happening? Naw...conspiracy theories are just silly... "

____________________________________________________________________________________

If 1:1 ratio and 6:1 ratio are both acceptable, the TEST shows that the results vary from rider to rider, and to say Floyd's ratio was too high after admitting that they fluctuate seems ridiculous. These tests seem to identify irregularites, not guilt, and to hang a man the way the have seems unfair. BTW why are these results released before the B sample is tested? Floyd will NEVER be able to clear himself after the A even if the B is negative, and was he tested after stage 17 because he won? Was he tested any other time during the tour? Is every stage winner tested?

ahh, I see recognizing charachter is another of your weak points!


maybe...but I can spell it!

I am forming my opinion on the poll taken in the forum, 3 to 1 believe Floyd is innocent, !


really? a forum that is 90% American frequented came up with that??? gosh darn! no, really? cmon, your pulling my leg aint ya? tell me it isnt so! bias? what bias? stone the crows!

then again, guess hitchy did discount the scientific basis that does surround popular opinion polls. where would Paris Hilton be without them? :rolleyes:

Who are these people who run the test anyway, french ?


Yes, French hematologists, laboratory technicians, endocrinologists, pathologists.

Don't blame them for properly carrying out the tests. BTW, good for L'Equipe and The Times ... and for their dogged reporters who have managed to get this story out. Pat McQuaid would rather have had a whitewash, but hopefully those days are over.

Who are these people who run the test anyway, french?

Who are these people who run the TOUR anyway, French? Well yes actually.

Race their race, play by their rules.

I have no doubt that they have followed correct procedure. If they made a mistake the B sample will correct that mistake. As I said before, I'd love to see Landis cleared but I'm prepared for the fact that it may not happen.

I've posted this response already in another thread, but here goes again:

People, are we NOT LISTENING?! This all doesn't make sense. I'm sure the B test will match the A test, Floyd himself said he expects that. The epitestosterone isn't a performance enhancing or de-hancing drug, so the fact that his testosterone level was relatively low, but his testosterone/epitestosterone RATIO was high means, and trust me here, I'm a mathematician, that his epitestosterone level had to be way low. How is THAT doping?

Also, it's been stated by many that his other tests obviously were clean, and that to take testosterone for one day would be foolish - steroids need to be taken in 6-12 week cycles, with some period between each cycle, to be effective and do what they're supposed to do. If he was doping (and I've already stated that his testosterone levels were relatively low, so this is a big IF) the testosterone levels would be high, and would have triggered a positive in other tests. Everyone needs to do some research on the situation before we all go out and hang this man.

Yup, this test the french are doing is very SUSPICIOUS. This is what a real doctor in sports medicine had to say about this:

"Testosterone can build muscle and improve recovery time when used over a period of several weeks",said Dr. Gary Wadler, a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and a spokesman for the American College of Sports Medicine. But if Landis had been a user, his earlier urine tests during the tour would have been affected.
"So something's missing here," Wadler said. "It just doesn't add up."

My pshysician was saying last night, testosterone, if applied, is not something that works like a magic pill overnight.

I highly doubt those tests now.

Corsaire



I've posted this response already in another thread, but here goes again:

People, are we NOT LISTENING?! This all doesn't make sense. I'm sure the B test will match the A test, Floyd himself said he expects that. The epitestosterone isn't a performance enhancing or de-hancing drug, so the fact that his testosterone level was relatively low, but his testosterone/epitestosterone RATIO was high means, and trust me here, I'm a mathematician, that his epitestosterone level had to be way low. How is THAT doping?

Also, it's been stated by many that his other tests obviously were clean, and that to take testosterone for one day would be foolish - steroids need to be taken in 6-12 week cycles, with some period between each cycle, to be effective and do what they're supposed to do. If he was doping (and I've already stated that his testosterone levels were relatively low, so this is a big IF) the testosterone levels would be high, and would have triggered a positive in other tests. Everyone needs to do some research on the situation before we all go out and hang this man.

Why is the test lame? I'm sure that it was carried out with all care and following the proper procedures. You can't call the test lame just because it gives us a result that we'd rather not hear.

If the B sample confirms the A sample, there is good reason to be dissapointed. If what we thought was a testimony to superb athletic ability and hard work turns out to be the result of an illegal substance, we'll all be dissapointed. The amazing way Landis took back the time he lost may end up just being a great advertisement for whatever it was that he was on at the time.

I truly hope that the B sample is clear and that what we witnessed was an incredible athletic achievement, but it may well not be the case and wishing, unfortunately, will not make it so.

Be not like so many others and leap to the conclusion that a positive test on the 'B' sample confirms conclusively that Floyd cheated. If the test were for the presence of EPO, I'd be lined up right alongside you. The test in this case is comparing a ratio - one which naturally varies from person to person, and one which can go up if either Testosterone levels increases, Epitestosterone levels decrease, and one which has clear documentation for being dramatically raised following the consumption of alcohol (which Floyd and others say he did following stage 16).

Do I know whether or not Floyd cheated? Nope. Certainly, it is troubling that this has happened, but this is not so cut and dried. I may be one of the few who is willing to reserve my judgement until the entire process has run to its conclusion. A process that is not over if the 'B' sample comes back positive.

Cheers,

Z

Very good article on doping and drugs in sports from the former Anti-doping Commissioner of the International Triathlon Union:

http://www.arthurdevany.com/archives/2006/06/mark_sisson_on.html

I've posted this response already in another thread, but here goes again:

People, are we NOT LISTENING?! This all doesn't make sense. I'm sure the B test will match the A test, Floyd himself said he expects that. The epitestosterone isn't a performance enhancing or de-hancing drug, so the fact that his testosterone level was relatively low, but his testosterone/epitestosterone RATIO was high means, and trust me here, I'm a mathematician, that his epitestosterone level had to be way low. How is THAT doping?


Your math is right. It is doping because WADA defined a non-complying ratio as indicative of doping. Floyd or his endocrinologist may have underdosed the levothyroxine resulting in insufficient epiteststerone in his body. If he isn't taking enough medications to maintain normal epitestoerone levels, he fails the doping test.

It is my understanding that a natural increase in Testosterone (such as might occur from a huge effort on Stage 17) would also increase the levles of epitestosterone (a natural precursor to Testosterone), and, thus, the T/E ratio would not appear abnormal.

However, Floyd's hypothyroidism is another matter. While his hypothyroidism is regulated with medication, I've heard from a doctor that medication does not stabilize a patient's thyroid levels the way they are stable in a normal person who is not hypothyroid. Hypothyroidism also leads to low levels of the protein SHBG. Because testosterone must bind with SHBG before it is processed by the system, low levels of SHBG can cause abnormally high levels of testosterone, and, thus, abnormally high T/E ratios.

In short,

hypothyroidism->low levels of SHBG->excess testosterone->high T/E ratio

If he was cheating, then they should be able to find artificial testosterone in his blood.

Your math is right. It is doping because WADA defined a non-complying ratio as indicative of doping. Floyd or his endocrinologist may have underdosed the levothyroxine resulting in insufficient epiteststerone in his body. If he isn't taking enough medications to maintain normal epitestoerone levels, he fails the doping test.
If his epiteststerone levels are LOW, then his T/E ratio would be abnormally LOW, not HIGH, and he would not fail the doping test.

How's my math?

What's really pathetic is that the UCI went public b/c they "knew" (as stated in an interview in VeloNews) that the French lab would break confidentiality and leak the news!

That's horrible. I'll admit that the lab's inability to respect confidentiality doesn't mean they can't competently run dope tests but if the UCI knows this lab has a direct link to the press, why do they use it?


It's a convenient way to get information out that is difficult to get to the public due to the confidential nature of the information.

If his epiteststerone levels are LOW, then his T/E ratio would be abnormally LOW, not HIGH, and he would not fail the doping test.

How's my math?

Poor. The epitesterone is in the denominator.

thanks meb. you beat me to the punch, but I'll provide an example. Say your testosterone level is 200 and your epi level is 10. Your ratio is 20 to 1. If your testosterone level is 190 and your epi. level is 5 your ratio is 38 to 1. So it's possible for someone (say Floyd) to have relatively normal testosterone level, but still have an abnormally high ratio. QED

Poor. The epitesterone is in the denominator.
Doh!

Okay, but, wouldn't a decrease in epitesterone production lead to a proportionally low testosterone level? Isn't that the basis for the T/E test?

I asked this on another thread but I'll ask it here too.

Reports are that "every" or at least "hundreds" of riders who have appealed the T-E test to the Court of Arbitration for Sports with endocrinological evidence have prevailed and had punishment overturned.

Two thoughts:

1. Floyd probably gets off.

2. Of what use is this test if the appeal rate against is so successful?

That question is valid IMO even if Floyd had been standing behind a horse pulled plough in Lancaster County, PA all summer.

More importantly, what's the point of leaking the info about a likely-to-be-overturned test except to smear Floyd's name?

Okay, but, wouldn't a decrease in epitesterone production lead to a proportionally low testosterone level? Isn't that the basis for the T/E test? No. That is not the relationship between T and epiT. epiT is used as a control marker because (supposedly) it is unaffected by T-related steroids. Variations in the ratio occur naturally.

IMO, UCI is using a kluge test simply because they haven't come up with a better one for flagging potential steroid use. Doesn't make it a good test.

More importantly, what's the point of leaking the info about a likely-to-be-overturned test except to smear Floyd's name?

Enough already with the leaking, smearing, conspiracy crap. The simple fact remains that Floyd’s team was first to release a statement that Floyd failed the test. After Floyd pulled out of two cycling events rumors started swirling and the team released the info. Why on Earth would Phonak want to smear their own rider.

Floyd failed a test where his T/E ratio was higher than the standard set forthby cycling authorities. Many may question the need and credibility of this test, but all cyclists are bound by the same rules. The bottom line is he exceeded the T/E ratio. He will have his say and get to defend himself.

Enough already with the leaking, smearing, conspiracy crap. The simple fact remains that Floyd’s team was first to release a statement that Floyd failed the test. After Floyd pulled out of two cycling events rumors started swirling and the team released the info. Why on Earth would Phonak want to smear their own rider.

Floyd failed a test where his T/E ratio was higher than the standard set forthby cycling authorities. Many may question the need and credibility of this test, but all cyclists are bound by the same rules. The bottom line is he exceeded the T/E ratio. He will have his say and get to defend himself.

....after his name has been dragged through the mud and his accomplishment, if it does turn out to be PED-free, still tarnished. In that event, which lab, which UCI official, and which court of public opinion does he appeal to in order to get his good name back??

This is beginning to look like a case where the "cure" is sometimes worse than the disease. I'm sure the riders caught up in the Spanish investigation and barred from riding in the Tour, only to be exonerated since, would like their good names back, too.

I've posted this response already in another thread, but here goes again:

People, are we NOT LISTENING?! This all doesn't make sense. I'm sure the B test will match the A test, Floyd himself said he expects that. The epitestosterone isn't a performance enhancing or de-hancing drug, so the fact that his testosterone level was relatively low, but his testosterone/epitestosterone RATIO was high means, and trust me here, I'm a mathematician, that his epitestosterone level had to be way low. How is THAT doping?

Also, it's been stated by many that his other tests obviously were clean, and that to take testosterone for one day would be foolish - steroids need to be taken in 6-12 week cycles, with some period between each cycle, to be effective and do what they're supposed to do. If he was doping (and I've already stated that his testosterone levels were relatively low, so this is a big IF) the testosterone levels would be high, and would have triggered a positive in other tests. Everyone needs to do some research on the situation before we all go out and hang this man.

Source?

Do you have any source saying his testosterone level is relatively low? Not an argument from silence just because testosterone level is not mentioned. I have not seen any and I have read the WSJ article one other poster cited. It said no such thing.

So far all I've seen is (mainly sloppy) news reports saying his testosterone level was high and more professional ones saying that the 'positive' test is for the ratio.

Unless you can cite a source at this point all we know is the ratio was outside the allowable, perhaps as high as 11:1. We have no idea if the testosterone level was 'normal', low or just one point below the max allowable. I do think the argument from silence is pretty strong for the testosterone level not being above the allowable max.

My source is John Eustice. He stated that in print (can't find it) and in an interview. Here's a link to the espn.com search results : http://search.espn.go.com/keyword/search?searchString=eustice&Find.x=15&Find.y=6

click on the video link on the right.

He states it about a minute into the interview. Now...I'm not going to say he's 100% right, but he's a professional, and actually sounds like a voice of reason on espn, as opposed to everyone else.

The simple fact remains that Floyd’s team was first to release a statement that Floyd failed the test. Uh-uh. That the team knew *at all* was a leak! According to UCI protocol the B sample must be tested before the team and rider are contacted. If Phonak knew, then others knew, and they apparently decided to get out in front of the tabloids.

After Floyd pulled out of two cycling events Huh? What two events? He isn't scheduled to ride again until 2007, and due to the hip operation nothing in 2007 could be taken as a certainty. You wanna be more specific?

the riders caught up in the Spanish investigation and barred from riding in the Tour, only to be exonerated since, And that would be whom?

Angry......As I sit here & type this, it's my overwhelming emotion,
Floyd....Oh I know we need to wait for 'B' samples & whatever other tests
need to be done.....but, (assuming that they will confirm the 'A' sample),
Floyd, how could you betray us all like this?. The stage 17 ride was
arguably one of THE GREATEST in any TDF, (dare I say, all Pro cycling),
history. The emotions that it stirred amongst this cycling fan were a
mixture of amazement & sheer joy at the human spirit, the 'have a go
attitude', a truly monumental day in cycling....it made me believe that
anything was possible, if you wanted it badly enough... & now we find out
that you were 'juiced'?....I'm angry Floyd....how dare you do this to the
sport, to the fans, to all those who hailed you as 'the new
beginning'.....how dare you. You are a fraud & a cheat....to use a good old
fashioned Aussie curse, "I hope ya chooks turn into emu's & kick ya dunny
down!"


I sure hope you can ride better than you can write.
Is English your first language?

What a loser.


-------------------------------------

I sure hope you can ride better than you can write.
Is English your first language?

What a loser.


-------------------------------------
ooh scary american...yes english is my 1st language...please don't liberate me....i have no oil...so please don't massacre our innocent civilians, like you have in Iraq...if you have a problem with my argument, attack my argument, not me, but that would require you to have an brain, wouldn't it?...see you on springer buddy, Did you marry your sister?

And that would be whom?


Joseba Beloki, Isidro Nozal, Sergio Paulinho, Allan Davis and Alberto Contador.

Angry......As I sit here & type this, it's my overwhelming emotion,
Floyd....Oh I know we need to wait for 'B' samples & whatever other tests
need to be done.....but, (assuming that they will confirm the 'A' sample),
Floyd, how could you betray us all like this?. The stage 17 ride was
arguably one of THE GREATEST in any TDF, (dare I say, all Pro cycling),
history. The emotions that it stirred amongst this cycling fan were a
mixture of amazement & sheer joy at the human spirit, the 'have a go
attitude', a truly monumental day in cycling....it made me believe that
anything was possible, if you wanted it badly enough... & now we find out
that you were 'juiced'?....I'm angry Floyd....how dare you do this to the
sport, to the fans, to all those who hailed you as 'the new
beginning'.....how dare you. You are a fraud & a cheat....to use a good old
fashioned Aussie curse, "I hope ya chooks turn into emu's & kick ya dunny
down!"

I suggest we put emotions aside, take a deep breath and let the full process and science play out before one decides if Landis, or anyone else for that matter, deserves their disappointment. To do so prematurely cheapens oneself, the sport, the process and a potentially innocent human being and all the other stakeholders :(

Uh-uh. That the team knew *at all* was a leak! According to UCI protocol the B sample must be tested before the team and rider are contacted. If Phonak knew, then others knew, and they apparently decided to get out in front of the tabloids.

Huh? What two events? He isn't scheduled to ride again until 2007, and due to the hip operation nothing in 2007 could be taken as a certainty. You wanna be more specific?

DMF, Pat McQuaid has already said that it was irregular procedure but that UCI told the team and the rider after the A-Sample (allegedly because they feared it would come out in the press anyway). UCI then told the press that it had told "a rider" and "a team" and "a national federation" and "a national anti-doping org" about the adverse result of the A-sample.

So McQuaid, head of UCI, bears some responsibility for the way this exploded over several days in the media. They put out a little chum and the sharks responded. (including all of us baby internet sharks)

....after his name has been dragged through the mud and his accomplishment, if it does turn out to be PED-free, still tarnished. In that event, which lab, which UCI official, and which court of public opinion does he appeal to in order to get his good name back??

This is beginning to look like a case where the "cure" is sometimes worse than the disease. I'm sure the riders caught up in the Spanish investigation and barred from riding in the Tour, only to be exonerated since, would like their good names back, too.

He still failed the test. We all may not like it, but I don't see how letting that fact out is a deliberate attempt to smear. Unfortunately, Flandis is a professional cyclist , and participates is a sport that is so ripe with doping that when anyone performs at a high level they are suspected of cheating. This fact may never change.

He still failed the test. We all may not like it, but I don't see how letting that fact out is a deliberate attempt to smear. Unfortunately, Flandis is a professional cyclist , and participates is a sport that is so ripe with doping that when anyone performs at a high level they are suspected of cheating. This fact may never change.


i agree with everything except ripe. did you mean rife :eek: ?

ed rader

Joseba Beloki, Isidro Nozal, Sergio Paulinho, Allan Davis and Alberto Contador.
Ah! The 'Astana 5'. I hadn't read that when I posted.

Still, color me skeptical. As far as I know, the Operation Puerto investigation is far from over, and the courts may have ruled that there is insufficient evidence for sanctions as of now. I hope they're clean, but I'm gonna reserve judgement for a while.