Road Bike Racing - *** SPOILER *** VERY interesting facts from Landis' book

Although I'm not yet done with Floyd's book, I'm pretty well into the doping allegations section. While I understand that this is his side of the story, I think there are some very important revelations/facts brought out in the book (all of which can be easily checked for validity which makes me trust them to be true, especially since they've not been denied)

Basically, they all center around the idea that the UCI is an organization run by people who believe all the cyclists to be guilty and to be servants who should toe the party line and do what they're told.

About 5 years ago, the pro team Landis was on, Mercury, went bankrupt. They couldn't pay the riders. However, before every season, the UCI requires each team to put a bank deposit/guarantee that can cover all the rider's salaries in just such a situation. However, if the guarantee is used, the team has to be suspended, pretty much destroying their chances of getting a new sponsior and racing for that season. After 30 days of not getting paid, the rider can write to request their salary. Landis did and was asked by the UCI to give Mercury another chance to pay. He agreed to do so.

After another 4 months went by, L:andis was majorly in debt on his credit cards so he requested again for his guarantee. The UCI again asked for him to give Mercury more time. He agreed but come fall (about 3 months later), Landis had a lwayer sent a letter to the UCI stating that he would have to pursue legal options to retrieve his money because he was in debt and the bank guarantee did not seem to be working. The UCI head wrote him a letter saying that the UCI did not believe they'd broken any rules and that, "such an agressive approach might perhaps work in the U.S.A., but it does not in Europe and most definitely not with me...I have taken order to our legal department to take the tone of your approach into account when it comes to following up on your request." Landis had a warning added to his file.

About a year later (2002 TDF), Landis was with US Postal. At the TDF he was asked by reporters about the status of the riders from Mercury getting paid. he told them he never received the money. Within two hours of the interview, he, Johan, Lance and the US Postal team managers had recieved a note stating that Landis had 48 hours to retract his statement or he'd be suspended indefinitely. Landis refused because he thought he'd done nothing wrong. Lance warned him not to cross the UCI, "It doesn't matter if you're right. You can't say things like that about the UCI. You're going to have to deal with them in the future, and you don't want them to be against you." Landis eventually apologized. He still did not get his money until THREE YEARS after his first request.

Now, fast forward to 2006. Landis has tested positive but is denying it. Pat McQuaid (head of UCI) gives him a call. "I'm not saying you're a bad guy," he told Landis, "I'm sure you weren't doing anything that everyone else wasn't doing. You're just the unlucky one who got caught. You should change your tactics and accept a suspension because there's no way you can win." Landis told him he wouldn't change tactics because he didn't do it and McQuaid replied, "You'll end up penniess." Now, putting aside whether you think every cyclist dopes or not, as the head of the UCI, if you truly believe that (as McQuaid was saying here to Landis) how can you honestly feel fine with some guys getting caught and others winning, and calling THEM "clean?" Further, do you believe that an organization run in the strongarm manner that the UCI appears to be (by more accoutns than Landis' BTW) and that believes ALL riders to be guilty would afford the rider a fair chance? Whether or not it played into the testing, the release of the results before the B sample or everything that followed, I think it's pretty clear the UCI was not fond of Landis. He'd made them, in their eyes, look bad.

Even further, McQuaid was quoted in the paper as saying that the reason they released the info about Floyd before the B sample was that, "the French laboratory has a close connection with L'Equipe, and the UCI preferred that the information not come through the press." So instead of sanctioning a lab for not foloowing the rules, he decides to break them himself?!

I have no idea if Landis is guilty or not but I think there's more than enough questionable practices by UCI and the French lab to say that they have not acted properly and have not fully proven Landis' guilt.

Anyways, read the book for yourself and see what you think.

As you stated, I do realize it's one side of the story. But it is pretty eye opening the tactics that were/are used against him in the book. You'll be even more surprised at the epilouge where Arnie Baker presents like 5 arguments againt the + test.

As you stated, I do realize it's one side of the story. But it is pretty eye opening the tactics that were/are used against him in the book. You'll be even more surprised at the epilouge where Arnie Baker presents like 5 arguments againt the + test.

I'll let you know when I get there, but the thing about the points I stated above is that they're all facts which can be verified. Arnie Baker's comments can all be argued in a thousand directions by diff. "experts" and while he's probably telling the truth, he is a friend of Landis'. Still, I'll post my thoughts when I read it.

Arnie posts actual test numbers and cites every one of them with WADA techinical document references in the end. I see what you're saying, but theroretically since you can go to the website and confirm these test values, they're facts too.

But I believe you'll still be surprised at the incompetency at the end.

Arnie posts actual test numbers and cites every one of them with WADA techinical document references in the end. I see what you're saying, but theroretically since you can go to the website and confirm these test values, they're facts too.

But I believe you'll still be surprised at the incompetency at the end.

Question: after reading the book, did you feel Landis was either innocent or at least "not proven guilty?" AND after the Tour de France this year, with all the positive tests did it change your opinion to feel that all riders must dope? Do you think this year's TDF hurts Floyd's public support?

Just for clarification: I am a Floyd fan, have been since I met him years ago at a local race while racing with Chevy Trucks team. I do have some bias.

Yes, after reading the book, I do think that he has enough evidence to be proven "not guilty". Did he do it? Who knows.
I am 50/50 on the subject of doping. Part of me thinks, "Who cares, it's their body and after all that time in the saddle, they need that extra boost." The other part of me is dissapointed and sad to see doping so rampant in sports as a whole. But, if I got paid to ride a bike/throw a football/shoot a puck and doping would give me that extra edge to support my family, or be more competitive.......it's hard to say what I would do.

Yes I do believe that this years tour hurt Floyd's image. Now everyday people, instead of just cyclists are saying, "Well if he beat all those dopers, then he must be doping too!" But in America, cycling is not mainstream enough for anyone to really care. You have the people that now believe he doped but don't care, and the people that will support him "because he's American and the French screwed him because he's American!"

And although I don't really believe it's a French conspiracy, I do think the level of incompetence was far beyond what should be happening in a lab that handles things like this.

Question: after reading the book, did you feel Landis was either innocent or at least "not proven guilty?" AND after the Tour de France this year, with all the positive tests did it change your opinion to feel that all riders must dope? Do you think this year's TDF hurts Floyd's public support?

Without a doubt, after reading the book, IF it were the typical american court system, he would EASILY be Not Proven Guilty. Loads of technicalities. :) It's funny, rather than talk about synthetic testosterone in he system, he argues that it should never have even been flagged for the testing for synthetic testosterone. And I agree. But still, a technicality.

I enjoyed the book, read it in about two or three days. But got lost a little bit in the doping half of the book.

I have not read the book and have not decided if I will, I was never a Landis fan nor a hater he rode. Quite frankly I never emotionally invested myself in his success.

However, I am an ardent critic of the UCI and of WADA (as it exists under Pound). I have argued since the A sample leak last year that the UCI has mishandled this case and has mistreated Landis. Previously, I condemned the organizations for the way they mishandled other athletes in other cases.

During the '98 TdF scandal I was dismayed by the tactics used against riders and was thrilled to see the riders revolt (rolling protests). Shortly there after arose WADA which seemed to protect the accusers more than the accused (admittedly, the WADA rules attempt to be fair and just but they are routinely violated). The accusation of doping is almost as damaging as a conviction as the costs of a defense is simply overwhelming and the conviction only adds suspension.

Then came the retesting of the '99 B samples to "test" the test. A routine procedure possible under anonymity rules that might actually improve the science behind the tests but seemingly was done for purpose of discrediting one rider. You see, the scientific meathod requires testing one variable at a time, in such a test a this using random B sample with random contaminates and random doping levels would not show anything but what a new test can show on old samples. It would not be scientific nor usable to improve the test. To improve the test a scientist would need known result samples, just like they use to calibrate the test machines. Using unspiked B samples would introduce too many problems. In the ferver to "bust" Armstrong with this damaging "evidence" a lot inconsistencies were ignored.

The list goes on of abuses of power and of ineptness or corruption. Landis is simply a newer case and his story as stated in the OP is neither new nor unique. The more Landis fights the corrupt abuses of power thrown against him (regardless of his guilt he should have not been so abused) the more I respect him- not as a cyclist but as a human being.

I have made my decision that professional cycling is not worthy of my time for many things highlighted by the Landis case. If he was doping he was wrong and should be banned but the organizers can't justify the means by that end. It saddens me that humanity is still willing to trade justice for expediency- regardless of how often that trade occurs.

Perhaps so many riders tested positive this year because the French lab is still incompetent and following poor protocols. Baker's appendix points out that many of Landis's "positive" test data would have been negatives at the American, Swiss, and Australian labs. The lab was using their equipment incorrectly and had no manual for it. They had not removed shipping handles that would affect results. I enjoyed the book, don't know if Floyd's lying or not, but he made a convincing argument that the system stinks.

As you stated, I do realize it's one side of the story. But it is pretty eye opening the tactics that were/are used against him in the book. You'll be even more surprised at the epilouge where Arnie Baker presents like 5 arguments againt the + test.

Wow. I read the appendix and it really is amazing. I'd have to say that I'm convinced Floyd's innocent after reading that - no more on the fence. The first interesting point is that the mislabeling of Floyd's ID number is worse than I'd thought from previous articles. They did not mislabel one document, or get one ID number wrong. They got his ID number wrong THREE times! It almost looks as though they found positive lab tests by other riders and, using wite-out, changed the number to Floyd's. Not saying they did that, but jeez! THREE TIMES.

The contamination of the specimin is a very valid argument. I don't know enough about the science here to know if he's interpreting the numbers properly but if he is, then the sample is contaminated and not a valid sample.

The unreliable testing is to me, 100% a reason for this thing to be thrown out. They tested the same sample (his "A" sample) twice and the two results were off by more than 200%!!! Even in high school science class, if you'd turned in those results, your teacher would tell you you needed to do it again. A 200% variance in tests says that it's not accurate or capable of telling you anything useful with regard to what you were testing for. I don't understand why this case wasn't thrown out.

The other points were ones I was already aware of (e.g. how the rules for what constitutes a positive result is diff. in diff. WADA labs).

His book did not really change my mind; Arnie Baker's presentation DID.

Arnie Baker's comments can all be argued in a thousand directions by diff. "experts" and while he's probably telling the truth, he is a friend of Landis'. Still, I'll post my thoughts when I read it.

Told you it was all screwed up! :)

that stuff was in Walsh's book too along with some other stuff that makes Landis look just as guilty as he probably is, most of which came out in the SCA trial with Armstrong

wanna see how prevalent and effective doping is, check their performance histories

yes the labs suck and yes the UCI is run by thugs basically, but some riders are F'ing stupid too, look at Hamilton, that fool got busted 3 times but only the last one was official, sometimes they dodge some bullets, Armstrong has on a few occasions too, Landis wasn't so lucky

that stuff was in Walsh's book too along with some other stuff that makes Landis look just as guilty as he probably is, most of which came out in the SCA trial with Armstrong

wanna see how prevalent and effective doping is, check their performance histories

yes the labs suck and yes the UCI is run by thugs basically, but some riders are F'ing stupid too, look at Hamilton, that fool got busted 3 times but only the last one was official, sometimes they dodge some bullets, Armstrong has on a few occasions too, Landis wasn't so lucky

I haven't picked Walsh's book up yet. Is it worth reading?

Also,can you summarize any MAJOR factual points that makes Landis look so guilty?

I haven't picked Walsh's book up yet. Is it worth reading?

Also,can you summarize any MAJOR factual points that makes Landis look so guilty?

Walsh's facts are dubious, and he has been discredited repeatedly.

As for Landis' book, there are a lot of misinterpretations and slants aimed at his side of the story only.

Neither book is worth reading, because both books come with a bias and and are heavily one-sided, with an agenda.

Landis has repeatedly proven that he is willing to lie to get off those charges.

Walsh's facts are dubious, and he has been discredited repeatedly.

As for Landis' book, there are a lot of misinterpretations and slants aimed at his side of the story only.

Neither book is worth reading, because both books come with a bias and and are heavily one-sided, with an agenda.

Landis has repeatedly proven that he is willing to lie to get off those charges.

How ironic. Nothing could better characterize your own bile-filled rants on BF.

I haven't picked Walsh's book up yet. Is it worth reading?

Also,can you summarize any MAJOR factual points that makes Landis look so guilty?


Well for starters there is a conversation tween Vaughters and Andrieu that happened a few days after Armstrong's 7th tdf that talks about how Johan and Lance once dumped Landis' rest day blood transfusion down the sink on their rest day cause they found out Landis was leaving postal for Phonak, this was told to Vaughters by Landis. Then there's the actual values found in Landis' samples which show a trend just like most of them do. Then there's his performance in races. It all adds up to a picture of guilt. This came out in the SCA trial, Im sure the transcript can be dug up if your that interested, afterall, the above info and conversation was secured by subpoena. The evidence against Armstrong is even more damning.

So far Ive read most of the books available, all the Armstrong books, the Walsh book, Landis' book, and a handful of others, then Ive gone back and watched some of the race footage and checked some of the performance's cited in some of the books..............how anyone can watch and NOT see what's going on is beyond me at this point, it's quite obvious, but you have to go back as far as the early 90's to see it. Cortocoids and amphetamines boost performance, but nothing like what proper EPO, HGH, and testosterone treatments can do.

Is the UCI and labs poorly organized and somewhat corrupt? YES, without a doubt. Does politics play a part, again YES without a doubt. Are these riders doping and getting caught, YES, even when warned about it(see Hamilton).

To be blunt, its kinda ruined racing for me, I used to really enjoy it, now its a freakshow and all my heroes have turned out to be human, frail, and subject to all the flaws and pitfalls anyone is subject to. I really feel for the guys that literally hurt themselves trying to ride clean and keep up, some of which did damage to themselves in the process. Maybe someday the testing will unequivocally be able to stop all the doping, but until then guys are gonna cheat.