Road Bike Racing - Landis Appeal Dismissed

The case is over - he is done. Must pay $100K. http://www.tas-cas.org/news

And we expected.......

So he's out until Jan 30, 2009.

Is he banned from Pro Tour events for anther 2 years after that?

Any bets on whether he's done now?

He needs money. I'm betting we haven't seen the last of him.

He'll ride for a domestic team, Rock Racing, not ToC though it's a PT race. He's broke though, no new mansion like Lance in his future.

wow, that was a REALLY close decision, except for the 3-0 vote and the fact that the panel said some of the defenses weren't even arguable. other than that, it could have gone either way

and the efficiency of those guys!!! only 2 years to close a case on someone who pee'd an 11:1 epi on an epic mountain stage and blamed it on Jack Daniels, the heat, the French, and Greg's uncle.

and the efficiency of those guys!!! only 2 years to close a case on someone who pee'd an 11:1 epi on an epic mountain stage and blamed it on Jack Daniels, the heat, the French, and Greg's uncle.

HEY! he didn't blame it on greg's uncle, he just threatened to act LIKE greg's uncle! don't you go starting rumors. :notamused:

one thing i find interesting in the findings - the panel says some of floyd's defense was based on minor procedural errors in the french lab. maybe the standards of evidence are different in france and new zealand (the home countries of two of the judges), but the controls and work of that lab wouldn't stand up to five minutes of scrutiny in a US court, and i'm surprised an american lawyer (the third judge) would go along with that statement

Now I can go on with my life.

Now I can go on with my life.

not yet you can't

Actually, I already did.

How does the testing work in the TdF? I mean, does each stage winner automatically get tested?

I just can't believe that he and whoever else was involved thought they would slip through the cracks when putting up a performance like that. I don't get it.

How does the testing work in the TdF? I mean, does each stage winner automatically get tested?

I just can't believe that he and whoever else was involved thought they would slip through the cracks when putting up a performance like that. I don't get it.


According to a recent study (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html?_r=2&ref=sports&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) (yes, I know it's EPO and not testosterone), there are lots of false negatives in drug testing.

I've spent some time in a molecular biology lab, and this isn't surprising to me. I've had plenty of failed experiments where I knew the protein I was looking for existed, and after 2 or 3 rounds of optimization, there it was. There are many places where a test like this can go wrong, starting from the moment collection takes place.

Bottom line: I'm more surprised when they get caught... not surprised that they were doping, surprised that the test actually worked.

Any word on the Pcad verdict yet?

Any word on the Pcad verdict yet?

Yeah, Euro covered it in another thread. :thumb:

I wish we could vote Floyd off the island

Yeah, Euro covered it in another thread. :thumb:

I figured. I called him out on the Road Cycling Forum. It's like setting a Havahart trap.

http://www.biconet.com/traps/GIFs/smallLive2.jpg

Actually, some of the testimony from the French lab technician was amazing. She said that she used "white out" to cover up stuff, knowing that the use of "white out" to obscure data was forbidden. She said that she did not trust the machines she was using, so if the machine gave her an answer that seemed "wrong", she would simply invent an answer that made more sense to her.

That is not to say that Landis did not cheat. But, anyone would read the testimony of the lab tech, word for word would have to ask: would I convict someone of even jaywalking, based on this sort of testimony?

Actually, some of the testimony from the French lab technician was amazing. She said that she used "white out" to cover up stuff, knowing that the use of "white out" to obscure data was forbidden. She said that she did not trust the machines she was using, so if the machine gave her an answer that seemed "wrong", she would simply invent an answer that made more sense to her.

That is not to say that Landis did not cheat. But, anyone would read the testimony of the lab tech, word for word would have to ask: would I convict someone of even jaywalking, based on this sort of testimony?

Do you know where I can find links to that? Sounds like that would be an interesting read.

Actually, I already did.

No, not yet you didn't.

:)