Professional Cycling - Landis Lied about an IV

Guys - read an interview today where Floyd is NOW saying he took an IV after the day he cracked (stage 16) when he has previously said he did NOT take an IV. .

here is the interview where he denies an IV (7/28):

http://outside.away.com/outside/news/20060728_1.html
Q: Aafter the hard stage in the mountains [day he cracked] did you take an IV that night?

Landis: No.

Now, however, he is saying he took an IV (8/8):
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-landis8aug08,0,5640612.story?coll=la-home-sports

"Landis started Stage 16 of the Tour in first place. That day, he faltered to 11th. After finishing Stage 16, Landis said Monday, he felt "tired," "cold," "completely empty of energy." The team doctor hooked him up to an intravenous drip that contained saline solution, perhaps glucose — nothing more, he said."

So, why lie about an IV if you are innocent? This, IMO, is a way for him to add to the confusion and possible explanations of why he had testo (geez, must have been something in that IV). You don't really forget getting an IV after the worst public ride of your career. . .Again, not the actions of an innocent man, IMO.

Can't really argue with that, now can ya?

Well, not to pick nits (these are reporters, not court testimony), but the first interview asked him if he had an IV "that night" and were talking about the beer and JD. The second interview seems to indicate he was put on an IV very shortly after the stage finished, and he then talks about what happens "early that evening" as if it happened after the IV. It seems reasonable - given that he was responding to individual questions, not laying out a detailed timeline - to have understood both questions differently and given different answers. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have an IV "that night" and I also expect that, particularly early on when he's more scared and uncertain, he's likely to try to answer questions quite literally.

I would not be surprised if his doctor did put him on an IV immediately after the stage - he sure looked like he needed immediate intervention.

I'm not taking sides here - unlike many other posters, I actually don't know what really happened and I don't know what Landis did or did not do. But if you look over every tea leaf in every comment made by anyone I'm sure you can find something to "prove" your conclusion.

If you are looking for a pattern of deceptive behavior, look no further than him concealing his hip condition.

liar liar pants on fire!!!

:(

Doesn't look good, but ed's interpretation isn't crazy.

Still, at best this is another strike against Floyd in the public opinion contest.

From the BBC interview


"All of these reasons that have come up, some from me, some from other people, we need to forget about them and let the experts figure out what's going on," he said.

"The whisky idea was not mine and the dehydration was a theory from the lawyers I hired in Spain to represent me at the opening of the B sample.

"But I did not authorise them to say something like that so I'm disappointed with that."

What a mess...

So, why lie about an IV if you are innocent?
Especially as IVs are totally standard in stage races.

I thought WADA banned all injections last year, including IV hydration. I will have to check. That way you can't claim someone gave it to you unknowlingly or the fluid was tainted etc.. as an excuse

It appears he did indeed cheat. However, whether or not he cheated, as an individual, he is out of his league in trying to deal with the issue.

I thought WADA banned all injections last year, including IV hydration. I will have to check. That way you can't claim someone gave it to you unknowlingly or the fluid was tainted etc.. as an excuse



"Except as a legitimate acute medical treatment, intravenous infusions are prohibited."

Sort of. The rule needs to be much more clear and strict in my opinion. Any IV, drs note or not, should be required to be reported and result in a two week suspension. Any non-reported IV should be treated as any other doping incident.

They are hardly ever a medical neccessity and only used because they can speed up hydration.

So by admitting the IV, he's broken another rule?

No because it was probably administered by a dr..

Any IV, drs note or not, should be required to be reported and result in a two week suspension
...

I thought WADA banned all injections last year, including IV hydration. I will have to check. That way you can't claim someone gave it to you unknowlingly or the fluid was tainted etc.. as an excuse

The AIS did post-Mark French scandal.

Can't recall WADA banning them.

I thought during the one stage race OLN talked about how all riders used I.Vs to replenish lost fluids?..... wasn't that the excuse U.S postal had for throwing away all those needles a couple years ago?

Landis' complaint with the "leaking" of the A sample is that he had to answer allegations in the media immediately without time to formulate a response. Essentially his complaint boils down to I didn't have time to craft a consistent story, and was making it up as I went along. That shows in the various inconsistencies such as the growing bar tab, and now the IV.

It appears he did indeed cheat. However, whether or not he cheated, as an individual, he is out of his league in trying to deal with the issue.
Agree but fail to understand why a 30's someting guy can't figure out how to sitdow and think about the situation for even long enough to realize that he is killing himself with his shifting story lines.

Landis' complaint with the "leaking" of the A sample is that he had to answer allegations in the media immediately without time to formulate a response. Essentially his complaint boils down to I didn't have time to craft a consistent story, and was making it up as I went along. That shows in the various inconsistencies such as the growing bar tab, and now the IV.
Of course, if one tells the truth one does not have to "craft a consistent story."

No, that's not true, as evidenced by this thread. It is *possible* that the two statements posted at the start of this thread are both completely true and honest answers, and we've got people announcing that those statements prove "Landis Lied". In the press, it's not enough to tell the truth - you need to be sure to communicate it in a way that minimizes the risk that it will be misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted.

No, that's not true, as evidenced by this thread. It is *possible* that the two statements posted at the start of this thread are both completely true and honest answers, and we've got people announcing that those statements prove "Landis Lied". In the press, it's not enough to tell the truth - you need to be sure to communicate it in a way that minimizes the risk that it will be misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted.

I disagree. He knew the intent of the question which was to determine if he had taken an IV to recover from the crack on stage 16 with no reference to exact timing. The reporters were asking what he had taken to recover. He is not capable (obviously given his string of stories) of parsing that into different time frames to give a technically "honest" answer by breaking down the timelines.

Net/net, he was asked a simple, closed question and answered (probably truthfully) "no" the first time. Later, upon reflection and trying to obfuscate, he changed the answer.

No, that's not true, as evidenced by this thread. It is *possible* that the two statements posted at the start of this thread are both completely true and honest answers, and we've got people announcing that those statements prove "Landis Lied". In the press, it's not enough to tell the truth - you need to be sure to communicate it in a way that minimizes the risk that it will be misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted.

I guess that depends on the meaning of what "is" is?

He voted for the IV, before he voted against it. :(

I disagree. He knew the intent of the question which was to determine if he had taken an IV to recover from the crack on stage 16 with no reference to exact timing. The reporters were asking what he had taken to recover. He is not capable (obviously given his string of stories) of parsing that into different time frames to give a technically "honest" answer by breaking down the timelines.

Net/net, he was asked a simple, closed question and answered (probably truthfully) "no" the first time. Later, upon reflection and trying to obfuscate, he changed the answer.

The reporter placed the specific limitation of "night" into the inquiry. If the reporter wanted a broader scope question and was not concerned about the overnight-away-from-the-public and press time period, there would have been no need to place such a specific timeframe in the question.

I'm very disappointed in Landis. I was rooting for the guy and he turns around and slaps me in the face. Sadness.

The reporter placed the specific limitation of "night" into the inquiry. If the reporter wanted a broader scope question and was not concerned about the overnight-away-from-the-public and press time period, there would have been no need to place such a specific timeframe in the question.

This is the kind of excuse that we've come to expect from Landis.

It's the same lie that Armstrong used a few years back. Losing the time trial and getting dehydrated in the mountains, Armstrong took an IV to mask the results from his EPO usage at the time. They said it was for dehydration. Yeah right.

That year, as in previous years re-hydration via IV was permitted.

Just as in previous years they've allowed EPO. Pantant, Armstrong, Indurain. Let's not kid ourselves. The stuff is taken in like "orange juice" by the top riders.

I guess since you all raced with Lance and trained with him you know about his drug usage. Come on people if you spent as much time training as you do posting about other cyclist's drug usage you might get fast.:D