Professional Cycling - Floyd's open letter to Phonak

An Open Letter to the Phonak Professional Cycling Team

Dear Andy, John, my teammates and staff:

When I joined the Phonak Cycling team, it was our ultimate goal to win the Tour de France. On Sunday, July 23rd, 2006, we achieved that goal.

With the dedication and support of the entire team and staff, we overcame impossible odds to make the 2006 Tour de France one of the most exciting races in its history. When the race arrived in Paris on the final day, we had the Yellow Jersey.

Winning the tour with Phonak makes me very proud. Andy, you have assembled an excellent organization, staff and team. You never wavered in your commitment to the team and your athletes despite the struggles you’ve faced in the past. It makes me happy to have won the Tour with and for Phonak. You deserved to be on the podium with me.

While the recent allegations against me hurt us all, I respect the fact that the Phonak team must follow its own rules and charter under these circumstances. I just wish that all the parties involved would do the same. Despite this, I will not relent on my pursuit of the truth. I will not shy away from this fight.

Most of all, I understand that this situation impacts families and friends other than my own. It affects the businesses and sponsors that support cycling as well as the sport itself. It is for this reason that I am determined to show that I followed the rules and won fairly and cleanly. There is a greater integrity at stake here than just my own.

I thank you all for your support and courage as I embark on this journey to restore my name, the team’s name and the image of cycling.

Thanks,

Floyd Landis
2006 Tour de France Champion

http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/2006/08/15/181/#more-181

Now, imagine that you've been wrongly accused of cheating in the Tour de France. Would you write a letter like this?

I find this paragraph most revealing:

Most of all, I understand that this situation impacts families and friends other than my own. It affects the businesses and sponsors that support cycling as well as the sport itself. It is for this reason that I am determined to show that I followed the rules and won fairly and cleanly. There is a greater integrity at stake here than just my own.

What is the reason that he is "determined to show" that he "followed the rules and won fairly and cleanly"? Is the reason because he followed the rules and won fairly and cleanly? Nope, that's not the reason. The reason is, this situation impacts families and friends other than my own.. Oh, and because it "affects the businesses and sponsors that support cycling as well as the sport itself".

Come on. Like if it didn't affect others there wouldn't be reason to show he follow the rules?

How about saying he needs to prove his innocence to retain the title (and $$$!) of being the Tour de France winner? How about to clear his good name? Oh, wait, Tyler already used that one. That explains it. :rolleyes:

I admit, there is a part of me that wants Floyd to be innocent. Oh, it's a big part of me. All of the irrational me...

HH, your continued trumpeting of your rationality isn't convincing to me. Take your analysis of his letter, for instance. Do you really believe for a nanosecond that you can determine his guilt based on that one sentence? Come on, get over yourself already. You even misquoted the guy the other day, claiming that he said "I guess I'll say yes" when in fact he said "I'll say no."

Here's my take on Landis' public comments: The guy is a cyclist. How good a cyclist, I don't even know, because I haven't ever watched him ride. I never even heard of the guy-- despite all of his detractors claming he's "my hero"-- until after the scandal broke. So I don't know how good a cyclist he is.

But he's a cyclist. That's all he is. Public speaking, P.R.-- those aren't his strong suits, and it shows. He's not adept at it, and maybe that's a good thing. His public statements are stumbling affairs, and the fact that he's not a spin-master shouldn't be taken as evidence of his guilt.

HH, with a "French" sense of language thinks the word "accused" and the word "guilty" are the exact same word. Therefore, anything he sees or reads translates into "guilty". When Floyd is ultimately cleared of these bogus charges, and the headlines read "Landis Cleared", HH will translate the word "cleared" into the word "guilty". The world is a simple place for those with simple minds.

Like with OJ, no one piece of evidence is incriminating. But when you put it all together, including the accused's own behavior, no other alternative explanation makes sense. Unless of course you suspect a mass conspiracy including not trusting the labs...

HH, your continued trumpeting of your rationality isn't convincing to me. Take your analysis of his letter, for instance. Do you really believe for a nanosecond that you can determine his guilt based on that one sentence? Come on, get over yourself already. You even misquoted the guy the other day, claiming that he said "I guess I'll say yes" when in fact he said "I'll say no."

Here's my take on Landis' public comments: The guy is a cyclist. How good a cyclist, I don't even know, because I haven't ever watched him ride. I never even heard of the guy-- despite all of his detractors claming he's "my hero"-- until after the scandal broke. So I don't know how good a cyclist he is.

But he's a cyclist. That's all he is. Public speaking, P.R.-- those aren't his strong suits, and it shows. He's not adept at it, and maybe that's a good thing. His public statements are stumbling affairs, and the fact that he's not a spin-master shouldn't be taken as evidence of his guilt.

How about the fact that he lied about taking an IV? Or the lies about the amount of alcohol he consumed?

...But when you put it all together, including the accused's own behavior, no other alternative explanation makes sense. ...

I don't have an explanation for Floyd's test results (I'm going to reserve my assessment until the UCI closes the inquiry) - but your interpretation of the letter that was written is either tremendously clouded with bias, or demonstrates difficulties in comprehending English. Re-read the paragraph below carefully. Clearly he is out to both exonorate himself, and to uphold the integrity of his team and sponsors.

"Most of all, I understand that this situation impacts families and friends other than my own. It affects the businesses and sponsors that support cycling as well as the sport itself. It is for this reason that I am determined to show that I followed the rules and won fairly and cleanly. There is a greater integrity at stake here than just my own."

Drugs on his ball. Got busted. Get over it.

Drugs on his ball. Got busted. Get over it.

If he goes down, he goes down. If he gets cleared, he gets cleared. No skin off my nose either way. What I have more trouble getting over are the cockamamie attempts to psychoanalyze everything Floyd says or does. These are less than meaningless when they are lifted out of context by someone who has already leapt to their conclusion.

If he goes down, he goes down. If he gets cleared, he gets cleared. No skin off my nose either way. What I have more trouble getting over are the cockamamie attempts to psychoanalyze everything Floyd says or does. These are less than meaningless when they are lifted out of context by someone who has already leapt to their conclusion.
It's his comments, in context, that, along with all the other evidence, cause me, for one, to reach the conclusions that I reach, not the other way around.

The only possibilities are:


He did not knowingly dope, but someone who was out to get him with extraordinary access somehow got T into him without him knowing.
He did not dope, but someone out to get him doctored his samples.
He did not dope, but the lab made some kind of error, like switching his samples with someone who did dope.
He knowingly doped (but made some kind of mistake in his normal regime that revealed a 11:1 T/E ratio when normally it is masked, like it is for all the other dopers who passed all their tests...) and is hoping that somehow he'll get off on a technicality.

All I'm saying is that all the evidence, including his statements and behavior, particularly the lack of outrage, including the letter quoted in the OP, are much more consistent with (4) than (1), (2) or (3).

Serge

It's his comments, in context, that, along with all the other evidence, cause me, for one, to reach the conclusions that I reach, not the other way around.

The only possibilities are:


He did not knowingly dope, but someone who was out to get him with extraordinary access somehow got T into him without him knowing.
He did not dope, but someone out to get him doctored his samples.
He did not dope, but the lab made some kind of error, like switching his samples with someone who did dope.
He knowingly doped (but made some kind of mistake in his normal regime that revealed a 11:1 T/E ratio when normally it is masked, like it is for all the other dopers who passed all their tests...) and is hoping that somehow he'll get off on a technicality.

All I'm saying is that all the evidence, including his statements and behavior, particularly the lack of outrage, including the letter quoted in the OP, are much more consistent with (4) than (1), (2) or (3).

SergeHave you seen the news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_us/jonbenet_ramsey)?

Have you seen the news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_us/jonbenet_ramsey)?
Yes... are you implying there is some relevance?

Yes... are you implying there is some relevance?A rush to judgment before we've heard all the facts.

A rush to judgment before we've heard all the facts.
So...are you implying there is some relevance?


As observers to the affair, we are not held to the same standards, "innocent until proven guilty", etc. We are free to form our own opinions, and unless we're on the USADA panel deciding Landis' case it has absolutely no bearing on the final outcome -- only the USADA panel (and possibly the CAS if/when he appeals) can rush (or take their time) to a judgment of any consequence for Floyd.


Anyway, as to the Ramsey case: no one has yet been convicted. There was suspicion, but the parents were (officially, legally) cleared a while back, when a judge determined that there was more evidence supporting a break-in than the parents committing the crime, and now it appears he was right. Floyd doesn't (yet) have anything like that going for him, other than his own voice.

It's his comments, in context, that, along with all the other evidence, cause me, for one, to reach the conclusions that I reach, not the other way around.

The only possibilities are:


He did not knowingly dope, but someone who was out to get him with extraordinary access somehow got T into him without him knowing.
He did not dope, but someone out to get him doctored his samples.
He did not dope, but the lab made some kind of error, like switching his samples with someone who did dope.
He knowingly doped (but made some kind of mistake in his normal regime that revealed a 11:1 T/E ratio when normally it is masked, like it is for all the other dopers who passed all their tests...) and is hoping that somehow he'll get off on a technicality.

All I'm saying is that all the evidence, including his statements and behavior, particularly the lack of outrage, including the letter quoted in the OP, are much more consistent with (4) than (1), (2) or (3).

Serge


I agree with your logic, but not your assessment of his actions - especially your reading of the letter you referenced in the initial post.

If he goes down, he goes down. If he gets cleared, he gets cleared.

The inability of the "authorities" to demonstrate impartiality and malice towards none are the reason we're never going to know. In all likelihood his career is ruined (hip or no hip).

The inability of the "authorities" to demonstrate impartiality and malice towards none are the reason we're never going to know. In all likelihood his career is ruined (hip or no hip).

Agreed - but I have no ability to influence the process - nor would I want to - unless I could help Mr. Pound to an early retirement.

Like with OJ, no one piece of evidence is incriminating. But when you put it all together, including the accused's own behavior, no other alternative explanation makes sense. Unless of course you suspect a mass conspiracy including not trusting the labs...

But OJ was found not guilty by a jury, its gotta be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

It's his comments, in context, that, along with all the other evidence, cause me, for one, to reach the conclusions that I reach, not the other way around.

The only possibilities are:


He did not knowingly dope, but someone who was out to get him with extraordinary access somehow got T into him without him knowing.
He did not dope, but someone out to get him doctored his samples.
He did not dope, but the lab made some kind of error, like switching his samples with someone who did dope.
He knowingly doped (but made some kind of mistake in his normal regime that revealed a 11:1 T/E ratio when normally it is masked, like it is for all the other dopers who passed all their tests...) and is hoping that somehow he'll get off on a technicality.

All I'm saying is that all the evidence, including his statements and behavior, particularly the lack of outrage, including the letter quoted in the OP, are much more consistent with (4) than (1), (2) or (3).

Serge

You've missed the one where a lab technician planted the testosterone as part of huge conspiracy instigated by l'equipe to punish america because they never found LA guilty :D

But OJ was found not guilty by a jury, its gotta be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Only in the criminal trial. Besides, if Landis is guilty, he has nothing to lose by making these types of public statements.

But OJ was found not guilty by a jury, its gotta be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is but anyway: the standard for WADA (now USADA) is much lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt". There was a piece in Velonews on this I think, it's something like "to the reasonable satisfaction of the board [hearing the case]" -- it's not a court of law.

Like with OJ, no one piece of evidence is incriminating. But when you put it all together, including the accused's own behavior, no other alternative explanation makes sense. Unless of course you suspect a mass conspiracy including not trusting the labs...

Why bring up OJ? Guilty as hell, but the cops definitely planted evidence. Read up on the sock that showed up in his room (with Nicoles blood on it) 45 minutes after the first evidence pics were taken with no sock? Why do you think the jury decided not guilty? There is a difference between not guilty and innocent.