Professional Cycling For the Fans - What are people's thoughts on Floyd these days??

I was walking past the place that used to be FL's former father-in-law's restaurant today, and got to thinking about the price Floyd paid for his actions. He lost a lot. some of it he deserved, some of it not.

I sense a lot of animosity still out there for Floyd. in my opinion, the guy made some stupid mistakes, covered it up, and paid a really big price for it.

It made me sad to think of how quickly we turn on people who don't perform the way we want, and how dispensible/disposable our heroes are these days.

I for one wish Floyd well, and hope that he has a peaceful and successful end to his career.

I wish him the best, but I hope to never hear of him again.

His ride in the 2006 TdF was epic, I'll always remember that, but his excuses and accusations after getting caught were just too ridiculous and made him look like a giant idiot.

He encountered an obstacle.
Chose a path.
Chips fell.
Human beings do these things.

Floyd?

Check my sig. line. :)

Is that quote for real? Now that's funny.

All I know is that his Palomar Mountain training ride kicks my ass every time. Disgrace or not, dude is fast.

... but his excuses and accusations after getting caught were just too ridiculous and made him look like a giant idiot.
True under the assumption that he was knowingly guilty.

But his statements are also entirely consistent with someone who knows himself to be innocent and is naive enough to think that the system will eventually clear him.

Floyd rode rather unimpressively for OUCH this year. Could be because of the time out of competition, the hip surgery, or other factors.



His statements are also entirely consistent with someone who knows himself to be innocent and is naive enough to think that the system will eventually clear him.
Landis unrelentingly bashed the system from day 1. He had some reason to be critical of specific aspects -- namely, the "A" test results got leaked. Even within the first week or two, he was hinting that someone (likely the UCI) was essentially out to get him. Regardless of whether he was in fact guilty or innocent, I see little indication that he ever thought he was going to get a fair shake.

I have no problem with an accused rider presenting a cogent defense, including one that is skeptical and critical of the lab results. But Landis took a scorched-earth attitude towards his defense. It didn't work, it wasn't necessary, I don't think it served him well, and I don't have much sympathy for him as a result.

I'm grateful to Floyd for hanging tough in his defense. At the very least he exposed the farce that is the testing program. Too bad UCI, WADA, et al. are far better at playing ostrich than cop.

I'd like to see him come back, though loss of motivation is certainly understandable under the circumstances...

My thoughts are that he seems to be slumming (performing unremarkably) a bit for a TDF winner of only 3 years ago. Maybe the hip surgery left him a weaker rider.

True under the assumption that he was knowingly guilty.

But his statements are also entirely consistent with someone who knows himself to be innocent and is naive enough to think that the system will eventually clear him.

You'd have to be completely delusional not to believe he was guilty as hell.

:wtf:

+1. (Nuts... my temporal coordinates were off and I accidentally quantum-leaped a few minutes ahead.)

He seems to have convinced himself that he was innocent.

Weird thing is how awful he is these days. I'd thought he would have at least be riding with the middle bunch in major races, but he's not even hitting those standards.

I'm grateful to Floyd for hanging tough in his defense. At the very least he exposed the farce that is the testing program. Too bad UCI, WADA, et al. are far better at playing ostrich than cop.

I'd like to see him come back, though loss of motivation is certainly understandable under the circumstances...


:wtf:

He seems to have convinced himself that he was innocent.

Weird thing is how awful he is these days. I'd thought he would have at least be riding with the middle bunch in major races, but he's not even hitting those standards.

Lies are funny things. When we repeat them often enough to ourselves, they eventually become truth.
Although the hip replacement could be the reason he's not up to his former snorting thoroughbred glory.

Yeah, it wasn't just "hip surgery"...like a small incision and minor tweaking of a ligament or something. He had his hip replaced. Expecting him to be back in top form right now would be like expecting Roger Clemens to come back and be in mid season form a year after having his entire shoulder replaced.

Landis unrelentingly bashed the system from day 1. He had some reason to be critical of specific aspects -- namely, the "A" test results got leaked. Even within the first week or two, he was hinting that someone (likely the UCI) was essentially out to get him. Regardless of whether he was in fact guilty or innocent, I see little indication that he ever thought he was going to get a fair shake.
All of which still strikes me as "entirely consistent with someone who knows himself to be innocent and is naive enough to think that the system will eventually clear him."
If I were accused of something I didn't do I'd also be looking for anything that might explain the evidence presented - incl. rather unlikely things that may have altered it and the possibility of fraud or tampering. So bashing the system from the start seems like a pretty understandable response if you feel you didn't take anything yet you're being accused of it.

But if he really thought that he'd never get a fair shake then I don't see why he would have dragged out the defense so long and invested so much in it.

Lies are funny things. When we repeat them often enough to ourselves, they eventually become truth.Although the hip replacement could be the reason he's not up to his former snorting thoroughbred glory.

i wonder if tyler hamilton is still wearing his "believe" cap :roflmao2:.............

http://erader.zenfolio.com/p938655925/h27dd7be3#h27dd7be3

ed rader

You'd have to be completely delusional not to believe he was guilty as hell.

Of which I am guilty. I think he was screwed over.

For instance, why place more emphasis on one test than on a whole bunch of tests? Remember, the vast majority of tests were negative. And if the "super" isotope test is so great, why not use it on other days' samples that didn't trigger the crude indicator test?

Not to mention the absolute joke that was the lab.


Btw, one of the appeals judges was also delusional.

I saw him race at the Texas Tough Crit. I hung out an meet him afterword. Here is a pic of Floyd with my son. Floyd PIC (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=584721&page=2)

Anybody know what his other tests during the TdF showed? Would expect positive results for stages after he got caught.

Landis was tested 8 times. The "A" test on 7 of those was done shortly after the stages using the T-E ratio test, which did not indicate an imbalance.

The remaining "B" samples were tested at a later time and by a different lab tech, and 4 of those indicated synthetic T. They were done using the carbon isotope test, which is considered to be a very solid and reliable test.

They were all tested with the isotope test? News to me. Not that I doubt you, but do you have a link for more info?

He seems to have convinced himself that he was innocent.

Weird thing is how awful he is these days. I'd thought he would have at least be riding with the middle bunch in major races, but he's not even hitting those standards.

I was thinking the same thing. For the first half of the year mags and websites would say how the race went and end it with "and Floyd finished in blah blah blah spot". Now they don't even mention his name when he's in a race. It's a damn shame cause I was pulling for the guy the whole time. All this time after the hip replacement all he kept and keeps saying is "the hips great, I feel fine". If that's the case give us a podium finish or something.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?id=2871865

Thanks. I kinda stopped reading about it after the panel ruled.


The remaining "B" samples were tested at a later time and by a different lab tech, and 4 of those indicated synthetic T. They were done using the carbon isotope test ...
Au contraire:


The samples were not subjected to the carbon-isotope ratio detection method ...
And since they didn't test for it, they did not find synthetic T; they found a suspect T:E ratio.

Care to amend your earlier post? :p



... the [allowed] 4-to-1 testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio ...
Maybe I'm having a senior moment, but wasn't the ratio 6:1? (lowered from the previous 8:1?) And given the sloppy methodology of the lab, the actual ratios found would have been informative.

"The samples were not subjected to the carbon-isotope ratio detection method ..."
And since they didn't test for it, they did not find synthetic T; they found a suspect T:E ratio.

Care to amend your earlier post?
According to the article they did test for it using the carbon-isotope test. What your ellipsis above hides is the phrase "during the Tour"; they weren't tested initially since the A samples came out negative. These other B samples were only tested later as a result of the post-Tour hearings.

But the testing was done by the same lab that had reported the initial positive findings.

Yep, re-read the article. The T-E ratio does not prove the presence of synthetic T, it only indicates an imbalance.

His T-E ratio on Stage 17 was 11:1. The max allowed is 4:1.

According to the article they did test for it using the carbon-isotope test. What your ellipsis above hides is the phrase "during the Tour";

You are correct; I should have read more closely. NO isotope testing took place "during the Tour". However, the article does not say that the other seven B samples were subjected to isotope testing. (Nor does it say specifically what tests were done. I was under the impression that the lab wasn't equipped for isotope testing, which was done elsewhere.)

Perhaps you picked that up from another article?

The lab at Chatenay Malabry has the equipment and did all of Landis' tests, including all of the carbon isotope tests. The T-E ratio is a bit interpretive, while the CI tests are generally considered rock-solid and very reliable. They're also more expensive, so they aren't usually done in the first line of tests.

I'm sure I heard about it through other sources, and that article isn't terribly explicit, but those were the tests they ran.

I still think they should test the B samples in another lab to insure that everything is done without the specter of possible foul play.

Agreed.


Bacciagalupe, thanks for the update!

Too late, you can't retest a used sample.

That's what the hearings were about, by the way. All the procedures were documented, it was all reviewed by the hearings to make sure protocol was followed and the tests were done correctly, and examined thoroughly by the arbitration panel. The panel found that although there were errors, they did not invalidate the core finding; and the CAS agreed. CAS, by the way, has in fact overturned other rulings due to factors like protocol violations.

And let's face it, after an exhaustive set of hearings and an 80 page ruling, anyone who doubts the ruling was not going to change their mind due to any sort of additional evidence.

My thoughts on Landis? Tired. I read his book and followed the legal stuff, but don't get much out of it either way.

It is a sad state of affairs where you have to have an "official position" on doping to really enjoy following the sport, particularly in the winter when I watch a lot of old races on the trainer. But I have an official position - a rider who has tested positive I don't really have much interest in seeing anymore. On the other hand, a rider who never tested positive but was suspended through guilt-by-association or some unclear involvement gets the benefit of the doubt. That would include Vino, Ullrich, and Basso, among others.

Kind of off subject. But is it just me or did Landis all ways look pretty chubby for someone who would (or wouldn't) win the Tour de France?

... That would include Vino, Ullrich, and Basso, among others.

Scratch Vino from that list. He was definitely caught for homologous blood doping.

Kind of off subject. But is it just me or did Landis all ways look pretty chubby for someone who would (or wouldn't) win the Tour de France?

140 and 5'10 doesnt seem chubby to me? I met him at the Cascade Cycling Classic this summer and he is rail thin. None the les he's still better then 99.999999% of all the people on this forum.

I saw Landis race at the Manhattan Beach grand prix this summer. I was excited to see him race and glad he was back in racing.
I was hoping that since he always claimed he was innocent of doping that he would use his return to professional cycling as redemption and proof that he could race clean and do well.
Before the race started there were lots of people in and around the racer staging area who were cheering Landis and saying things like "go Floyd" and "good luck Floyd". They were ALL very supportive and encouraging.
When they called the racers to the line Landis looked apathetic and disinterested.
The race started and on the first lap he was in second place. From that point on he fell back and never once looked like he was trying to race hard.
Most guys had suffering and determination on their faces and Floyd looked like he couldnt care less.
I think he finished about 50th out of about 75 racers.
Pretty lame in my opinion.

I never had an opinion on his innocence or guilt in the TDF issue but I really gave him the benefit of the doubt in his return and was fully prepared to let him redeem himself.
He didnt.

I dont expect much from this guy in the future except more excuses.

When I saw him at the Cascade Cycling Classis Crit, he looked exactly the way you described him apathetic and disinterested. He was in second place and soon fell back to close to last by the time the race ended. No matter what hes still one of my favorite riders. He isnt doing to well in the Tour of Southland, I think hes like 75th out of a 125?

OK, here's what happened. He signed a one year deal with the devil to ride for OUCH because they fixed his hip for a rock bottom price. He thinks the team is full of scrubs not worth his empty water bottle so he figures "I'm going to throw out the boat anchor for a year and come back to tear it up in 2010 on a different team." I kid, I kid. I like the guy.

OK, here's what happened. He signed a one year deal with the devil to ride for OUCH because they fixed his hip for a rock bottom price. He thinks the team is full of scrubs not worth his empty water bottle so he figures "I'm going to throw out the boat anchor for a year and come back to tear it up in 2010 on a different team." I kid, I kid. I like the guy.


The story above is probably true. He seems to be a user.

--Pun very much intended.


I don't why anyone has any patience with him anymore. The guy really has a really a lot of balls to whine about politics in cycling recently --as if it could explain why he likely won't ride the Tour de France anymore. He's a cheat who got caught. He lost during a protracted appeals process where he and his team of guys showed their true colors... And still he refuses to admit any wrongdoing. What a jerk.

Still, you have to appreciate the comedy provided during the Landis hearings by, among others, the French lab technician who admitted that she'd whited out a test result "because she knew it was wrong" and wrote in another value that she liked better. Or words to that effect; it's a while ago now.

Still, you have to appreciate the comedy provided during the Landis hearings by, among others, the French lab technician who admitted that she'd whited out a test result "because she knew it was wrong" and wrote in another value that she liked better. Or words to that effect; it's a while ago now.

Lets add this gem to the already impressive list of flimsy/inaccurate pro-Landis argument. :roflmao2:

OK, here's what happened. He signed a one year deal with the devil to ride for OUCH because they fixed his hip for a rock bottom price. He thinks the team is full of scrubs not worth his empty water bottle so he figures "I'm going to throw out the boat anchor for a year and come back to tear it up in 2010 on a different team." I kid, I kid. I like the guy.

I also like him and hope he comes back in 2010 and does well. I heard that he might be going to Rock Racing?

I don't get it. Assuming he was always a very strong rider, surely a lack of heart and capable team mates alone can't explain how rubbish he is now? Or are we to assume that he's always a mediocre rider jacked up by doping?

I don't get it. Assuming he was always a very strong rider, surely a lack of heart and capable team mates alone can't explain how rubbish he is now? Or are we to assume that he's always a mediocre rider jacked up by doping?
I'd assume it's a lot of factors: hip replacement, weaker team, less motivation, extensive time off the bike etc. Doping may be a part of it, but I have some doubts that doping alone really constitutes the difference between a domestique and a Tour winner. Also, if you look at some riders who were caught and are likely/allegedly currently clean (e.g. Basso, Millar) their standings didn't drop nearly as precipitously as Landis'.

I'd assume it's a lot of factors: hip replacement, weaker team, less motivation, extensive time off the bike etc. Doping may be a part of it, but I have some doubts that doping alone really constitutes the difference between a domestique and a Tour winner. Also, if you look at some riders who were caught and are likely/allegedly currently clean (e.g. Basso, Millar) their standings didn't drop nearly as precipitously as Landis'.

True. He seemed a very optimistic and self-depreciating guy in interviews. Thought he would have more fight in him. He certainly sounds like the world owes him now. Maybe he feels it is unfair that he has been singled out?

Lets add this gem to the already impressive list of flimsy/inaccurate pro-Landis argument. :roflmao2:


281. WADA TD2003LCOC requires that,
Any forensic corrections that need to be made to the document should be
done with a single line through and the change should be initialled and
dated by the individual making the change. No white out or erasure that
obliterates the original entry is acceptable.
282. The testimony reveals that a forensic correction is a term used to deal with
correcting mistakes on a laboratory document. In particular, if a mistake is
made on a document, this error must be crossed out, initialled and corrected.
There should be no obliterations or use of whiteout. The purpose for these
forensic corrections is so that it can be read in the future.
283. At Exhibit 24, USADA0200 there are several improper corrections made to the
laboratory documents including improper crossing out, missing dates and
initials when crossing out occurred. There is another error at Exhibit 24
USADA 0008 where the wrong sample number is written down. In total, the
Respondent alleges that the LNDD has committed 39 different errors within the
lab documentation package. For the sake of expediency the Panel will not refer
to each individual error.
284. Dr. Goldberger the director of a forensic toxicology laboratory and the current
president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in his testimony
indicated that the pattern of mistakes in the data packages concerns him. It was
his opinion that he would as a result not trust the reliability of the report and
test results in this case.
285. In light of the above, the Panel concludes that the LNDD’s non-forensic changes
are not in accordance with the ISL and WADA Technical Document and a
departure has been established. The Respondent has therefore rebutted the
presumption in favour of the Lab found in Article 18 of the UCI Regulations.
Under the same Article it is now for the Claimant to establish that the departure
did not cause the AAF.

281. WADA TD2003LCOC requires that,
Any forensic corrections that need to be made to the document should be
done with a single line through and the change should be initialled and
dated by the individual making the change. No white out or erasure that
obliterates the original entry is acceptable.
282. The testimony reveals that a forensic correction is a term used to deal with
correcting mistakes on a laboratory document. In particular, if a mistake is
made on a document, this error must be crossed out, initialled and corrected.
There should be no obliterations or use of whiteout. The purpose for these
forensic corrections is so that it can be read in the future.
283. At Exhibit 24, USADA0200 there are several improper corrections made to the
laboratory documents including improper crossing out, missing dates and
initials when crossing out occurred. There is another error at Exhibit 24
USADA 0008 where the wrong sample number is written down. In total, the
Respondent alleges that the LNDD has committed 39 different errors within the
lab documentation package. For the sake of expediency the Panel will not refer
to each individual error.
284. Dr. Goldberger the director of a forensic toxicology laboratory and the current
president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in his testimony
indicated that the pattern of mistakes in the data packages concerns him. It was
his opinion that he would as a result not trust the reliability of the report and
test results in this case.
285. In light of the above, the Panel concludes that the LNDD’s non-forensic changes
are not in accordance with the ISL and WADA Technical Document and a
departure has been established. The Respondent has therefore rebutted the
presumption in favour of the Lab found in Article 18 of the UCI Regulations.
Under the same Article it is now for the Claimant to establish that the departure
did not cause the AAF.

Sounds like solid evidence. I like it when people actually bother to post proof to back what they're saying, instead of just relying on a perceived notion of what's going on.