Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Professional Cycling For the Fans (http://www.bikeforums.net/professional-cycling-fans/)
-   -   An open letter to Floyd (http://www.bikeforums.net/professional-cycling-fans/214583-open-letter-floyd.html)

Hitchy 07-28-06 02:33 AM

An open letter to Floyd
 
Angry......As I sit here & type this, it's my overwhelming emotion,
Floyd....Oh I know we need to wait for 'B' samples & whatever other tests
need to be done.....but, (assuming that they will confirm the 'A' sample),
Floyd, how could you betray us all like this?. The stage 17 ride was
arguably one of THE GREATEST in any TDF, (dare I say, all Pro cycling),
history. The emotions that it stirred amongst this cycling fan were a
mixture of amazement & sheer joy at the human spirit, the 'have a go
attitude', a truly monumental day in cycling....it made me believe that
anything was possible, if you wanted it badly enough... & now we find out
that you were 'juiced'?....I'm angry Floyd....how dare you do this to the
sport, to the fans, to all those who hailed you as 'the new
beginning'.....how dare you. You are a fraud & a cheat....to use a good old
fashioned Aussie curse, "I hope ya chooks turn into emu's & kick ya dunny
down!"

crankstar 07-28-06 03:45 AM

lame

Rancid 07-28-06 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crankstar
lame

seriously
All the B sample proves is that it was not a false positive. It in no way accounts for what could have just been a freak day in what is already a frewak of a human being. The guy's physiological stats are bizarre. The Testosterone to epistestoserone ratio is already way too close.

georgiaboy 07-28-06 03:52 AM

OMG!! :eek: NO!!! :eek: :eek:

Not the "I hope ya chooks turn into emu's & kick ya dunny down!" :eek:

You have really gone too far now! :D

mrkott3r 07-28-06 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgiaboy
OMG!! :eek: NO!!! :eek: :eek:

Not the "I hope ya chooks turn into emu's & kick ya dunny down!" :eek:

You have really gone too far now! :D


If you start crackin the Aussie jokes, Ill have to pull out the "illegal president line" :D

mrkott3r 07-28-06 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rancid
seriously
All the B sample proves is that it was not a false positive. It in no way accounts for what could have just been a freak day in what is already a frewak of a human being. The guy's physiological stats are bizarre. The Testosterone to epistestoserone ratio is already way too close.

Heres my problem:

These cyclists know the rules.
Sometimes they break the rules.
Then they question the rules?

How does that add up?
Its just not Landis, Hamilton has and a whole heap of other sports people.

jjmolyet 07-28-06 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitchy
"I hope ya chooks turn into emu's & kick ya dunny
down!"

Queens English please, what a foul useless thread to start, I am sure Floyd could give a rat's a$$ what you think, his mother had to leave her home from the media that has invaded the community, and you think he is wooried how you feel. Give me a break.
A week ago he stirred your emotions, today because of a lame test you kick him when he is down, that is real class. You say we need to wait for the B sample and then start the name calling, I am sure more of us would consider you a fraud, not Floyd. I hope you have a good view of the emus from your high horse! I am ashamed for you....disgraceful!!!!!!!!!!!

MediaCreations 07-28-06 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjmolyet
A week ago he stirred your emotions, today because of a lame test you kick him when he is down, that is real class.


Why is the test lame? I'm sure that it was carried out with all care and following the proper procedures. You can't call the test lame just because it gives us a result that we'd rather not hear.

If the B sample confirms the A sample, there is good reason to be dissapointed. If what we thought was a testimony to superb athletic ability and hard work turns out to be the result of an illegal substance, we'll all be dissapointed. The amazing way Landis took back the time he lost may end up just being a great advertisement for whatever it was that he was on at the time.

I truly hope that the B sample is clear and that what we witnessed was an incredible athletic achievement, but it may well not be the case and wishing, unfortunately, will not make it so.

Hitchy 07-28-06 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjmolyet
I am sure Floyd could give a rat's a$$ what you think

I'm sure he doesn't...he obviously didn't give a rat's about anyone other than his own personal glory


Quote:

Originally Posted by jjmolyet
his mother had to leave her home from the media that has invaded the community

I feel sorry for his mother, I am not the media...but perhaps he should of considered THIS consequence before he doped

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjmolyet
You say we need to wait for the B sample and then start the name calling

you really believe the B sample is going to be different?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjmolyet
I am sure more of us would consider you a fraud, not Floyd.

oh, & how do you arrive at that insightful deduction...maybe I am a fraud, maybe I'm someone else entirely...but I'm not a drug cheat, nor have I ever defrauded other sports people out of prize money....can Floyd say the same?.....sorry my view doesn't correspond with yours...tough!

mrkott3r 07-28-06 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitchy
oh, & how do you arrive at that insightful deduction...maybe I am a fraud, maybe I'm someone else entirely...but I'm not a drug cheat, nor have I ever defrauded other sports people out of prize money....can Floyd say the same?.....sorry my view doesn't correspond with yours...tough!


uh uh You're unAustralian!!! Im sending Johnny round! :lol: :lol: :roflmao:

jjmolyet 07-28-06 05:25 AM

Your view doesn't correspond with your own, why "wait for the B" if you don't think it means anything why wait?

I am forming my opinion on the poll taken in the forum, 3 to 1 believe Floyd is innocent, we don't know you, did you throw the Astana 5 under the bus before they were cleared, bet not, but the guy who made you feel warm and fuzzy in your heart a week ago is now public enemy number 1. Don't apologize that you view doesn't correspond with mine...I am glad!

mrkott3r 07-28-06 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjmolyet
Your view doesn't correspond with your own, why "wait for the B" if you don't think it means anything why wait?

They must need that second test to check if the first is accurate, since they have declared that I am gravy with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjmolyet
I am forming my opinion on the poll taken in the forum, 3 to 1 believe Floyd is innocent, we don't know you, did you throw the Astana 5 under the bus before they were cleared, bet not, but the guy who made you feel warm and fuzzy in your heart a week ago is now public enemy number 1. Don't apologize that you view doesn't correspond with mine...I am glad!


With Astanan 5 there was no test positives were there? Its a different case. The evidence is operation Puerto is not the same as a positive test result. I havent said Landis is guilty, Im just waiting for the official result.

Hitchy 07-28-06 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjmolyet
Don't apologize that you view doesn't correspond with mine...I am glad!

ahh, I see recognizing sarcasm is another of your weak points!

jjmolyet 07-28-06 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaCreations
Why is the test lame? I'm sure that it was carried out with all care and following the proper procedures. You can't call the test lame just because it gives us a result that we'd rather not hear.

If the B sample confirms the A sample, there is good reason to be dissapointed. If what we thought was a testimony to superb athletic ability and hard work turns out to be the result of an illegal substance, we'll all be dissapointed. The amazing way Landis took back the time he lost may end up just being a great advertisement for whatever it was that he was on at the time.

I truly hope that the B sample is clear and that what we witnessed was an incredible athletic achievement, but it may well not be the case and wishing, unfortunately, will not make it so.

This was originally posted by AlanBikesHouston, and one of the problems I have with testing:

"WADA formerly had a standard for the T/E ratio for testosterone testing of 6:1. The average guy, on an average day, has a T/E ratio of around 1:1. But, among 1,000 guys, a few might have a T/E ratio of 4:1 and a rare guy might have a ratio of 5:1 or 6:1.

In 2005, WADA decided to lower the T/E standard from 6:1 to just 4:1, based on research showing that only a small percentage of men would violate the 4:1 ratio without some sort of artificial help.

Under the WADA standard, if the "A" sample exceeds the 4:1 ratio, then the "B" sample is tested. If the "B" sample also exceeds 4:1, the rider is asked to show the reason why. That reason could include that the rider's ratio was elevated by approved medication, or that the rider's own natural ratio sometime exceeds 4:1. If the rider does not provide an explanation for a ratio over 4:1, then he is deemed to have failed the test, and he is subject to discipline, and the results of the tests are made public.

In this case, the results of the Landis test was provided to the Times of London by someone "close" to the lab before the results were given to Landis and Landis allowed to respond. This is the same lab castigated recently for illegally giving confidential information about Lance Armstrong to the French press. When the lab got caught in the Armstrong case, they suspended an employee, and claimed the lab would clean up its act. Well, it looks like the lab needs a bigger broom.

Conspiracy? The Houston police lab was recently found to have been botching DNA tests that resulted in innocent men going to prison. It was just incompetence. But, amazingly, when the lab made an error, the error usually resulted in a "positive" for the exact same guy that the police had designated as the prime suspect. Given that there are over a million men in Houston, what were the odds of THAT happening? Naw...conspiracy theories are just silly... "

____________________________________________________________________________________

If 1:1 ratio and 6:1 ratio are both acceptable, the TEST shows that the results vary from rider to rider, and to say Floyd's ratio was too high after admitting that they fluctuate seems ridiculous. These tests seem to identify irregularites, not guilt, and to hang a man the way the have seems unfair. BTW why are these results released before the B sample is tested? Floyd will NEVER be able to clear himself after the A even if the B is negative, and was he tested after stage 17 because he won? Was he tested any other time during the tour? Is every stage winner tested?

jjmolyet 07-28-06 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitchy
ahh, I see recognizing sarcasm is another of your weak points!

ahh, I see recognizing charachter is another of your weak points!

Walter 07-28-06 05:57 AM

There's a whole lot of info out and about and the sad thing is none of it should be yet since the B results are not yet in. Guilty or not Landis (and anyone else) did deserve to have his confidentiality respected as per the rules.

What's really pathetic is that the UCI went public b/c they "knew" (as stated in an interview in VeloNews) that the French lab would break confidentiality and leak the news!

That's horrible. I'll admit that the lab's inability to respect confidentiality doesn't mean they can't competently run dope tests but if the UCI knows this lab has a direct link to the press, why do they use it?

Since so much info is public anyways it's worth noting that Landis' overall testesterone level was below normal but the ratio of epitesterone to testesterone was way off. This has people who know a whole lot more about biochemistry than I do confused.

I'm not naive and am very bummed out over this but I'm willing to listen to Floyd as even I know a low testesterone level isn't much of a performance enhancer.

Walter 07-28-06 06:03 AM

Excerpted from an interview with UCI President Pat McQuaid. Emphasis added by me.

http://velonews.com/news/fea/10594.0.html

"I had a call to inform me about Landis testing positive just as I was getting on the plane to come here yesterday," McQuaid said Thursday evening. "We decided to make an announcement right away because we have been criticized in the past for not doing so - particularly in the case of an important rider.

"Also, we know that the French laboratory [where the testing was done] has a close connection with [French sports daily] L'Équipe, and we did not want this news to come through the press, because we are sure they would have leaked it. "


I'm opposed to doping but if you can't follow your own due process and use outside agancies you can trust do you (the UCI) have any validity?

My criticism of the UCI stands her even if glossy black and whites of Floyd's 'nads covered with testesterone patches appear in the press later today.

Corsaire 07-28-06 06:12 AM

How about the fact we create more TESTOSTERONE after tough physical efforts. Weight lifters use
this common knowledge in the sport to get bigger, by lifting heavy (like squats) the body creates testosterone which on the same token will create more muscle.
What if Floyd's testosterone level is just different, specially after a tough effort like stage 17?

Who are these people who run the test anyway, french ?

Corsaire



Quote:

Originally Posted by jjmolyet
This was originally posted by AlanBikesHouston, and one of the problems I have with testing:

"WADA formerly had a standard for the T/E ratio for testosterone testing of 6:1. The average guy, on an average day, has a T/E ratio of around 1:1. But, among 1,000 guys, a few might have a T/E ratio of 4:1 and a rare guy might have a ratio of 5:1 or 6:1.

In 2005, WADA decided to lower the T/E standard from 6:1 to just 4:1, based on research showing that only a small percentage of men would violate the 4:1 ratio without some sort of artificial help.

Under the WADA standard, if the "A" sample exceeds the 4:1 ratio, then the "B" sample is tested. If the "B" sample also exceeds 4:1, the rider is asked to show the reason why. That reason could include that the rider's ratio was elevated by approved medication, or that the rider's own natural ratio sometime exceeds 4:1. If the rider does not provide an explanation for a ratio over 4:1, then he is deemed to have failed the test, and he is subject to discipline, and the results of the tests are made public.

In this case, the results of the Landis test was provided to the Times of London by someone "close" to the lab before the results were given to Landis and Landis allowed to respond. This is the same lab castigated recently for illegally giving confidential information about Lance Armstrong to the French press. When the lab got caught in the Armstrong case, they suspended an employee, and claimed the lab would clean up its act. Well, it looks like the lab needs a bigger broom.

Conspiracy? The Houston police lab was recently found to have been botching DNA tests that resulted in innocent men going to prison. It was just incompetence. But, amazingly, when the lab made an error, the error usually resulted in a "positive" for the exact same guy that the police had designated as the prime suspect. Given that there are over a million men in Houston, what were the odds of THAT happening? Naw...conspiracy theories are just silly... "

____________________________________________________________________________________

If 1:1 ratio and 6:1 ratio are both acceptable, the TEST shows that the results vary from rider to rider, and to say Floyd's ratio was too high after admitting that they fluctuate seems ridiculous. These tests seem to identify irregularites, not guilt, and to hang a man the way the have seems unfair. BTW why are these results released before the B sample is tested? Floyd will NEVER be able to clear himself after the A even if the B is negative, and was he tested after stage 17 because he won? Was he tested any other time during the tour? Is every stage winner tested?


Hitchy 07-28-06 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjmolyet
ahh, I see recognizing charachter is another of your weak points!


maybe...but I can spell it!

HDTVKSS 07-28-06 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjmolyet
I am forming my opinion on the poll taken in the forum, 3 to 1 believe Floyd is innocent, !


really? a forum that is 90% American frequented came up with that??? gosh darn! no, really? cmon, your pulling my leg aint ya? tell me it isnt so! bias? what bias? stone the crows!

then again, guess hitchy did discount the scientific basis that does surround popular opinion polls. where would Paris Hilton be without them? :rolleyes:

Karlotta 07-28-06 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corsaire
Who are these people who run the test anyway, french ?

Yes, French hematologists, laboratory technicians, endocrinologists, pathologists.

Don't blame them for properly carrying out the tests. BTW, good for L'Equipe and The Times ... and for their dogged reporters who have managed to get this story out. Pat McQuaid would rather have had a whitewash, but hopefully those days are over.

MediaCreations 07-28-06 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corsaire
Who are these people who run the test anyway, french?

Who are these people who run the TOUR anyway, French? Well yes actually.

Race their race, play by their rules.

I have no doubt that they have followed correct procedure. If they made a mistake the B sample will correct that mistake. As I said before, I'd love to see Landis cleared but I'm prepared for the fact that it may not happen.

traildragon 07-28-06 07:38 AM

I've posted this response already in another thread, but here goes again:

People, are we NOT LISTENING?! This all doesn't make sense. I'm sure the B test will match the A test, Floyd himself said he expects that. The epitestosterone isn't a performance enhancing or de-hancing drug, so the fact that his testosterone level was relatively low, but his testosterone/epitestosterone RATIO was high means, and trust me here, I'm a mathematician, that his epitestosterone level had to be way low. How is THAT doping?

Also, it's been stated by many that his other tests obviously were clean, and that to take testosterone for one day would be foolish - steroids need to be taken in 6-12 week cycles, with some period between each cycle, to be effective and do what they're supposed to do. If he was doping (and I've already stated that his testosterone levels were relatively low, so this is a big IF) the testosterone levels would be high, and would have triggered a positive in other tests. Everyone needs to do some research on the situation before we all go out and hang this man.

Corsaire 07-28-06 08:00 AM

Yup, this test the french are doing is very SUSPICIOUS. This is what a real doctor in sports medicine had to say about this:

"Testosterone can build muscle and improve recovery time when used over a period of several weeks",said Dr. Gary Wadler, a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and a spokesman for the American College of Sports Medicine. But if Landis had been a user, his earlier urine tests during the tour would have been affected.
"So something's missing here," Wadler said. "It just doesn't add up."


My pshysician was saying last night, testosterone, if applied, is not something that works like a magic pill overnight.

I highly doubt those tests now.

Corsaire



Quote:

Originally Posted by traildragon
I've posted this response already in another thread, but here goes again:

People, are we NOT LISTENING?! This all doesn't make sense. I'm sure the B test will match the A test, Floyd himself said he expects that. The epitestosterone isn't a performance enhancing or de-hancing drug, so the fact that his testosterone level was relatively low, but his testosterone/epitestosterone RATIO was high means, and trust me here, I'm a mathematician, that his epitestosterone level had to be way low. How is THAT doping?

Also, it's been stated by many that his other tests obviously were clean, and that to take testosterone for one day would be foolish - steroids need to be taken in 6-12 week cycles, with some period between each cycle, to be effective and do what they're supposed to do. If he was doping (and I've already stated that his testosterone levels were relatively low, so this is a big IF) the testosterone levels would be high, and would have triggered a positive in other tests. Everyone needs to do some research on the situation before we all go out and hang this man.


USAZorro 07-28-06 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaCreations
Why is the test lame? I'm sure that it was carried out with all care and following the proper procedures. You can't call the test lame just because it gives us a result that we'd rather not hear.

If the B sample confirms the A sample, there is good reason to be dissapointed. If what we thought was a testimony to superb athletic ability and hard work turns out to be the result of an illegal substance, we'll all be dissapointed. The amazing way Landis took back the time he lost may end up just being a great advertisement for whatever it was that he was on at the time.

I truly hope that the B sample is clear and that what we witnessed was an incredible athletic achievement, but it may well not be the case and wishing, unfortunately, will not make it so.

Be not like so many others and leap to the conclusion that a positive test on the 'B' sample confirms conclusively that Floyd cheated. If the test were for the presence of EPO, I'd be lined up right alongside you. The test in this case is comparing a ratio - one which naturally varies from person to person, and one which can go up if either Testosterone levels increases, Epitestosterone levels decrease, and one which has clear documentation for being dramatically raised following the consumption of alcohol (which Floyd and others say he did following stage 16).

Do I know whether or not Floyd cheated? Nope. Certainly, it is troubling that this has happened, but this is not so cut and dried. I may be one of the few who is willing to reserve my judgement until the entire process has run to its conclusion. A process that is not over if the 'B' sample comes back positive.

Cheers,

Z


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:54 PM.