"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - Landis Decision

Same link as the TDF forum:

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3029089

dang.

Wish him the best.

FWIW, I still think his stage 17 ride was awesome.

This has proliferated about 40 threads in 10 minutes in several forums.

What will be interesting is how he will now spin this, and how Flandis fans will now spin this. I predict more bullsh-t.

Gee, real sorry for all those who bought his book and donated $250,000+ to his defense.

Is it time to get back to reality yet?

Gee, real sorry for all those who bought his book and donated $250,000+ to his defense.


Only part of the book concerned the doping issue. The rest was pretty entertaining. I feel sorry for people that comment on the value of books without reading them.

This has proliferated about 40 threads in 10 minutes in several forums.

What will be interesting is how he will now spin this, and how Flandis fans will now spin this. I predict more bullsh-t.

Gee, real sorry for all those who bought his book and donated $250,000+ to his defense.

Is it time to get back to reality yet?

That moment never arrives for you DR.

They did rule that the initial epi-test test was invalid:


In its 84-page decision, the majority found the initial screening test to measure Landis' testosterone levels — the testosterone-to-epitestosterone test — was not done according to World Anti-Doping Agency rules.

But the more precise and expensive carbon-isotope ration analysis (IRMS), performed after a positive T-E test is recorded, was accurate, the arbitrators said, meaning "an anti-doping rule violation is established."

Only part of the book concerned the doping issue. The rest was pretty entertaining. I feel sorry for people that comment on the value of books without reading them.

I will not buy any book written for the sole purpose of lying and funding more lies.

Can somebody give Pereiro a yellow jersey, please? TIA.

They did rule that the initial epi-test test was invalid:

Yeah no one was saying the lab was perfect, just that the evidence pointed to him doping and thats all that mattered.

They did rule that the initial epi-test test was invalid:

They did not rule that it was invalid, they ruled it wasn't done according to WADA rules. The subsequent tests proved that the first result was valid, and correct.
Exactly what part of "guilty" don't you guys understand? the verdict was not "kinda guilty".

Enough, experts have looked into this for over a year in painful detail, everything was studied to death. People were lied to, people were blackmailed, money was taken under false pretenses.

Can somebody give Pereiro a yellow jersey, please? TIA.

+1, let's see some sportsmanship.

+1, let's see some sportsmanship.

Oscar "I will not take a DNA test to prove my own innocence" Pereiro?

Tell me you're joking. The guy won't take a DNA test (stated publicly) to prove that he isn't implicated in Puerto, and yet you want to give him the yellow? Are you f***ing kidding me?

Boom goes the dynamite. Fark him. He lost any respect from me over the LeMond thing. He can go eat crap now.

Landis = proven cheater
Armstrong = clean, until proven dirty

So an American tour winner was guilty of cheating. Now some of the American haters on the other side of the pond can focus their venom on Landis, and let the unfounded Armstrong accusations rest now. Unless of course evidence shows Armstrong cheated.

Oscar "I will not take a DNA test to prove my own innocence" Pereiro?

Tell me you're joking. The guy won't take a DNA test (stated publicly) to prove that he isn't implicated in Puerto, and yet you want to give him the yellow? Are you f***ing kidding me?

Pereiro was cleared of any involvement in Puerto by the UCI. There is no evidence, therefore no reason for him to submit to DNA testing to prove anything. The ASO allowed him to race the TdF this year, despite their clearly stated position on cyclists under investigation. Someone on the internet saying that "Urko" is Oscar Pereiro, doesn't necessarily make it so.

how much longer before the drug troll http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/botto/images.jpg shows up on the forum?

Pereiro was cleared of any involvement in Puerto by the UCI. There is no evidence, therefore no reason for him to submit to DNA testing to prove anything. The ASO allowed him to race the TdF this year, despite their clearly stated position on cyclists under investigation. Someone on the internet saying that "Urko" is Oscar Pereiro, doesn't necessarily make it so.

I realize all of this.

But he said what he said before he was cleared. Why would he refuse to submit DNA if nothing was the matter?

I'm a Landis fan, and I knew he was going to lose this. I don't think anyone actually thought he would be found innocent.

UCI is a joke, WADA is a joke. Regardless of if he is a cheater or not the test wasn't done correctly so you can't trust the results period.

I realize all of this.

But he said what he said before he was cleared. Why would he refuse to submit DNA if nothing was the matter?

I chalk it up to human nature. If someone asks you for DNA to prove your innocence, when there is no evidence to link you to the crime in question, wouldn't you tell them to go fark themselves? I would.

I chalk it up to human nature. If someone asks you for DNA to prove your innocence, when there is no evidence to link you to the crime in question, wouldn't you tell them to go fark themselves? I would.

And would you want a Cycling Lab to handle your Samples?

And would you want a Cycling Lab to handle your Samples?

No. Not even if they paid me for the priviledge.

I chalk it up to human nature. If someone asks you for DNA to prove your innocence, when there is no evidence to link you to the crime in question, wouldn't you tell them to go fark themselves? I would.


Oddly enough, in middle school I was accused of stealing a trophy from a case outside our gym. It was found a couple of days later in another part of the school. The teacher that accused me said she had seen me around the area after school. Indeed, I had been. Matter of fact, I sat there every day waiting for my mom to pick me up from cross country practice. The school administration gave me a one day in-school suspension. During my time sitting alone in the office, I suggested they fingerprint me, being the wise-as$ little sh1t that I was. Realizing that they didn't have a damn thing on me, it was removed from my record, and the principal apologized. I still missed the Civil War Re-enactment that day, though.

The point: in cycling, just like school, they can suspend you for SUSPICION of guilt, which is why he should have thrown a sample at them ASAP, if he had nothing to lose.

Edit: When it was found, the only finger prints on its very shiny, metallic surface, were large. As in those commonly found on adult hands. Turns out the coach for that sport had moved it, and not told anyone.

God I wish I had the balls to dope.

The point: in cycling, just like school, they can suspend you for SUSPICION of guilt, which is why he should have thrown a sample at them ASAP, if he had nothing to lose.

The time will likely come when DNA testing will become a requirement. This will be, if for no other reason, than to avoid a repeat of the mess that is Puerto. Until that time, nobody will want to be the first to step up and voluntarily provide a sample. It would be tantamount to ratting out the mob, but without the witness protection program.

I still missed the Civil War Re-enactment that day, though.

The guys in blue won, as I recall. You didn't miss much.

God I wish I had the balls to dope.

So you could make Cat 3?

The guys in blue won, as I recall. You didn't miss much.


Others got to shoot flower out of rifles with a plastic extension hose for mouth-to-rifle barrel propulsion. I had all sorts of devious plans for what I could pack into the "blow gun" to shoot at the opposition. Wax pellets, spit balls, etc.

The actually "re-enacting" part was of little interest. Gettysburg cannot be accurately simulated in this part of Illinois.

Oscar "I will not take a DNA test to prove my own innocence" Pereiro?

Tell me you're joking. The guy won't take a DNA test (stated publicly) to prove that he isn't implicated in Puerto, and yet you want to give him the yellow? Are you f***ing kidding me?

+1...I know Floyd may not be innocent but Pereiro...come on you have got to be kidding me if you think that guy is innocent.
~Nick

It seemed inevitiable, but cycling will still be my sport regardless. There are those who don't take drugs and thats what the real cyclist appreciates.
It's not like I was going to sell everything and take up domino's anyway.
Bummer for him.

Hell, I take pain killers and ride. Although I would not call them performance enhancing.

God I wish I had the balls to dope.

Isn't the lack of balls a sign of rampant steroid use? Is someone slipping you the juice without you knowing? ;)

i don't blame anyone for not wanting to give a DNA sample. it would be low on my list of things to want to do as well.

how much longer before the drug troll http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/botto/images.jpg shows up on the forum?

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Rumor has it his mommy took away his computer privleges.

Oscar "I will not take a DNA test to prove my own innocence" Pereiro?

Tell me you're joking. The guy won't take a DNA test (stated publicly) to prove that he isn't implicated in Puerto, and yet you want to give him the yellow? Are you f***ing kidding me?

This is where doc responds with ..... (http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav)

Of course, he thinks Vino tested positive for steroids in the Tour.

So you could make Cat 3?

So I could suck wheel more comfortably with the 35+ vets for whom Cat 3 is wussy.

God I wish I had the balls to dope.

Wow. Without the artificial testosterone, you lack the testosterone to take the artificial testosterone.

Well, I cannot say I am surprised. having worked in a lab, the lab results of multiple tests are rarely wrong. I recall many time where the operations people would come in and ask, are you sure this is right? And Yes, I was, but to make them happy we'd rerun the tests, and yep, the results were the same. That said, I am troubled by the statement of the the arbitrators that "if the problems continue it might be grounds for tossing out the results in the future." This is either an admission (and an invitation to appeal the decision) that the testing was done improperly and the verdict was toeing the party line, or just an incredibly stupid thing to say. It makes the decision suspect in my opinion, as they imply there is one standard for this case and a different standard for future cases.

I think he got screwed. This case was decided from the start. Whether he cheated or not we'll never know for sure, and I really don't care. What really bugs me is the lack of process. The lab made errors and did not follow WADA protocol (this was acknowledged in the decision) and he is still found guilty.

he's found guilty because all the other re-tests confirmed he had a positive sample. i don't know how to put it more clear than that. sure, the lab made mistakes, but that's why they retested the samples. positive test each time. floyd had an opportunity to present his case and he did. and even then, he was still found guilty.

how is he being screwed? at no point, that i'm aware of, did any of his samples test negative.

Wow. Without the artificial testosterone, you lack the testosterone to take the artificial testosterone.

Well put.

http://216.93.169.53/images/news/13358.20590.f.jpg (http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13358.0.html)

http://216.93.169.53/images/news/13358.20590.f.jpg (http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13358.0.html)

They call that a cul de suck.

Interesting that someone in North Carolina has a picture of a street sign in Colorado Springs.

I do feel sad for Landis. I really do. He was caught doing what YOU have to do to compete in the current Tour, because the UCI, rather than put some teeth into the testing, has allowed so many loopholes that the culture still allows doping. But what the UCI and all the riders do not realize is that they are merely screwing themselves, because now they have to risk losing it all when getting caught.

I just hope Landis has some other career. I fear for the worst however, and Landis will end-up broke, working as a salesman an a local bike shop. It is so sad.

Interesting that someone in North Carolina has a picture of a street sign in Colorado Springs.

He lifted it off Velonews.

I do feel sad for Landis. I really do. He was caught doing what YOU have to do to compete in the current Tour, because the UCI, rather than put some teeth into the testing, has allowed so many loopholes that the culture still allows doping. But what the UCI and all the riders do not realize is that they are merely screwing themselves, because now they have to risk losing it all when getting caught.

I just hope Landis has some other career. I fear for the worst however, and Landis will end-up broke, working as a salesman an a local bike shop. It is so sad.

maybe he knows how to bowl :eek:?

ed rader

http://www.fototime.com/631E8C32CA126BB/orig.jpg

He lifted it off Velonews.

No way. No one would just take someone else's work and post it as their own without giving the true creator credit. People who post here are much more honrable than that and would never sink so low.

Can someone answer a question for me? They said the first test was not done properly but the second, more extensive test was positive for synthetic testosterone. Somewhere in all of this I remember reading that the french lab "positive" would not have been positive at UCLA. Was this the first, easy test or the second, better test?
Thanks!

I believe it was the second that would not have been a positive. UCLA would've required four markers, and the most significant one was missing, or something along those lines.

No way. No one would just take someone else's work and post it as their own without giving the true creator credit. People who post here are much more honrable than that and would never sink so low.
LOL - click the pic, and it links back to the freaking article.

Can someone answer a question for me? They said the first test was not done properly but the second, more extensive test was positive for synthetic testosterone. Somewhere in all of this I remember reading that the french lab "positive" would not have been positive at UCLA. Was this the first, easy test or the second, better test?
Thanks!

Here is my understanding of the sequence of testing.
1) The A sample is tested for a routine list of substances. Landis' test clears all but t testosterone to epitosterone ratio test (recently changed from 6:1 to 4:1). His T:E ratio was 4.5:1. The A sample is then subjected to the IMRS test (an analysis of carbon isotope ratios) which is only routinely done on samples that fail the T:E ratio. This test looks for markers of synthetic testosterone. Landis' sample failed one of the four isotope ratio which is enough to call a positive in the LNDD lab but not in many other labs that require more failed isotopes to call the results positive of synthetic testosterone.
2) The results of the A sample were leaked by the UCI to the press and Landis and Co. held a press release to spin it their way.
3) Two weeks after the A sample was tested the B sample was tested by the same lab (LNDD) with almost the same results. The T:E ratio changed from 4.5:1 to 11:1 (a 144% increase). Tests showing a difference of greater than 30% are suspicious and should be thrown out in most science labs. Such an increase indicates a problem with something and violates the cardinal rule of repeatability in science.
4) Months later (in April) Landis' other B samples were tested for synthetic testosterone only. The results were the same. The corresponding A samples were tested originally and are typically thrown out. These were not tested for T:E ratio and they too were tested in the same LNDD lab in France. Landis and Co. wanted these tested in the UCLA lab but that idea was rejected. These tests are virtually meaningless as they were performed in the same lab and were only the B samples.

USADA had problems with the way the T:E testing was performed on the A sample and basically ignored it completely. They did validate the IMRS tests and used that test to come to their 2:1 vote finding against Landis. They decided that the second part was valid enough in spite of their problems with the other part of the test. An interesting choice. I hope that answers your question.