Professional Cycling - Response From Floyd Landis Website Regarding The Results of Test B Being Positive

Interesting that no comments are allowed for this particular blog. :rolleyes:

http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/2006/08/05/176/#more-176

« Keep the FaithFLOYD LANDIS RESPONDS TO UCI ANNOUNCEMENT OF POSITIVE ‘B’ SAMPLE —

Landis To Appeal Laboratory Findings and Actions of UCI in ‘A’ Sample Leak
The UCI (International Cycling Union) today announced that the results of the ‘B’ analysis conducted on Floyd Landis’s urine sample of July 20, 2006 are consistent with the findings of the ‘A’ sample. Both samples were taken following Landis’s victory in stage 17 of the Tour de France. The results of the ‘A’ sample were released on July 26. Landis will pursue the appeal procedures established by the UCI in order to overturn the laboratory results. It is expected that the matter will now be referred to USA Cycling.

Landis, who has not used performance-enhancing substances, maintains his innocence in this case and believes that he will be vindicated of the doping charges.

“I have never taken any banned substance, including testosterone. I was the strongest man in the Tour de France, and that is why I am the champion,” said Landis. “I will fight these charges with the same determination and intensity that I bring to my training and racing. It is now my goal to clear my name and restore what I worked so hard to achieve.”

Landis’s attorney, Howard Jacobs, has begun preparing the case for arbitration. If the case follows the normal protocol, it is expected to be resolved within four to six months.

“At this point in time, I am waiting to receive the full laboratory documentation for the “B” test. In consultation with some of the leading medical and scientific experts, we will prove that Floyd Landis’s victory in the 2006 Tour de France was not aided in any respect by the use of any banned substances,” said Jacobs.

Landis and Jacobs will also argue against the UCI’s premature release of the ‘A’ sample findings as well as the anonymous leak of the carbon-isotope test results to the New York Times on July 31.

“I call on the UCI to start following its own rules and to allow this process to proceed without the further taint of public comment by UCI officials,” added Jacobs. “ The anti-doping process must be free from the perception that sports federations and anti-doping authorities, who hold great political and financial sway over sport, are attempting to influence the outcome of a pending case by issuing inappropriate public comments.”

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 5th, 2006 at 4:05 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed.

Talk is cheap.

Comments are closed. Been like that since the rumors of the first test being positive. Afraid of a little open discussion of the realities of doping, testing, and testing positive, are you Floyd? I'm sad to say I have a lot of trouble believing him. I haven't heard a reasonable,(IMO), excuse for an 11:1 ratio.

I haven't heard a reasonable,(IMO), excuse for an 11:1 ratio.

Let alone the finding of exogenous (artificial) testosterone. That's the clincher for me.

All of the arguing in the world about the test leaks does not change the fact he doped. It is a very weak argument, and doesn't change anything.

Richard

I haven't heard a reasonable,(IMO), excuse for an 11:1 ratio.

At this point, so soon after the initial testing, any excuse would sound bogus.

Good to know eachof you have spent several hours studying the recent report of that same French lab's role in the accusations last year against Lance Armstrong. The report that concluded that unreliable and untrustworthy test results were produced by a long series of unethical, illegal, and improper behavior by lab staff.

But, wait, this is "Bike Forums". Facts are not important. Who needs facts?

Good to know eachof you have spent several hours studying the recent report of that same French lab's role in the accusations last year against Lance Armstrong. The report that concluded that unreliable and untrustworthy test results were produced by a long series of unethical, illegal, and improper behavior by lab staff.

But, wait, this is "Bike Forums". Facts are not important. Who needs facts?

The question of whether Armstrong's B sample tested years after the fact, and only tested for research purposes was reliable, is light year's different from Landis' tests, particularly given that he had the right to observe the testing of the B sample. Obviously, there's a process to determine whether Landis should be sanctioned, in which any alleged irregularities can be raised and a process to appeal any such sanctions. However the chance that Landis ultimately beats this are virtually diminimis.

Comments are closed. Been like that since the rumors of the first test being positive. Afraid of a little open discussion of the realities of doping, testing, and testing positive, are you Floyd? I'm sad to say I have a lot of trouble believing him. I haven't heard a reasonable,(IMO), excuse for an 11:1 ratio.

More likely the host doesn't have the bandwidth to handle the comments. Even the mighty Bike Forums gets bogged down almost daily.


You've also not heard an official from the UCI mention an 11:1 ratio.

Good to know eachof you have spent several hours studying the recent report of that same French lab's role in the accusations last year against Lance Armstrong. The report that concluded that unreliable and untrustworthy test results were produced by a long series of unethical, illegal, and improper behavior by lab staff.

I'd like to know how the lab guesses well enough to spike the one stage 17 sample from Landis. It's not like the bottle has his name on it. Same goes for Armstrong's '99 EPO positive. They weren't even trying to match names with results during that study; it was enterprising journalism that scooped that dirt.

I don't know that either man cheated, I'm just saying the lab tainting the samples is the least possible explanation.

Good to know eachof you have spent several hours studying the recent report of that same French lab's role in the accusations last year against Lance Armstrong. The report that concluded that unreliable and untrustworthy test results were produced by a long series of unethical, illegal, and improper behavior by lab staff.
...according to a cover-up report organised by the UCI to clear them from any impropriety.

I find it interesting that the usual UCI-hating conspiracy theorists are so happy to accept a report which is clearly the product of a conspiracy.

This lab tainted Landis' tests when when it proved that it had ethical problemslast year. Test labs rely on their credibility- that trust was weakened when they had a leak (amongst other problems) and it will take years to regain that trust. Too bad they (the TdF) used the same lab.