Floyd's open letter to Phonak
08-16-06 | 02:29 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Floyd's open letter to Phonak
Originally Posted by Floyd Landis
An Open Letter to the Phonak Professional Cycling Team
Dear Andy, John, my teammates and staff:
When I joined the Phonak Cycling team, it was our ultimate goal to win the Tour de France. On Sunday, July 23rd, 2006, we achieved that goal.
With the dedication and support of the entire team and staff, we overcame impossible odds to make the 2006 Tour de France one of the most exciting races in its history. When the race arrived in Paris on the final day, we had the Yellow Jersey.
Winning the tour with Phonak makes me very proud. Andy, you have assembled an excellent organization, staff and team. You never wavered in your commitment to the team and your athletes despite the struggles you’ve faced in the past. It makes me happy to have won the Tour with and for Phonak. You deserved to be on the podium with me.
While the recent allegations against me hurt us all, I respect the fact that the Phonak team must follow its own rules and charter under these circumstances. I just wish that all the parties involved would do the same. Despite this, I will not relent on my pursuit of the truth. I will not shy away from this fight.
Most of all, I understand that this situation impacts families and friends other than my own. It affects the businesses and sponsors that support cycling as well as the sport itself. It is for this reason that I am determined to show that I followed the rules and won fairly and cleanly. There is a greater integrity at stake here than just my own.
I thank you all for your support and courage as I embark on this journey to restore my name, the team’s name and the image of cycling.
Thanks,
Floyd Landis
2006 Tour de France Champion
Dear Andy, John, my teammates and staff:
When I joined the Phonak Cycling team, it was our ultimate goal to win the Tour de France. On Sunday, July 23rd, 2006, we achieved that goal.
With the dedication and support of the entire team and staff, we overcame impossible odds to make the 2006 Tour de France one of the most exciting races in its history. When the race arrived in Paris on the final day, we had the Yellow Jersey.
Winning the tour with Phonak makes me very proud. Andy, you have assembled an excellent organization, staff and team. You never wavered in your commitment to the team and your athletes despite the struggles you’ve faced in the past. It makes me happy to have won the Tour with and for Phonak. You deserved to be on the podium with me.
While the recent allegations against me hurt us all, I respect the fact that the Phonak team must follow its own rules and charter under these circumstances. I just wish that all the parties involved would do the same. Despite this, I will not relent on my pursuit of the truth. I will not shy away from this fight.
Most of all, I understand that this situation impacts families and friends other than my own. It affects the businesses and sponsors that support cycling as well as the sport itself. It is for this reason that I am determined to show that I followed the rules and won fairly and cleanly. There is a greater integrity at stake here than just my own.
I thank you all for your support and courage as I embark on this journey to restore my name, the team’s name and the image of cycling.
Thanks,
Floyd Landis
2006 Tour de France Champion
Now, imagine that you've been wrongly accused of cheating in the Tour de France. Would you write a letter like this?
I find this paragraph most revealing:
Most of all, I understand that this situation impacts families and friends other than my own. It affects the businesses and sponsors that support cycling as well as the sport itself. It is for this reason that I am determined to show that I followed the rules and won fairly and cleanly. There is a greater integrity at stake here than just my own.
What is the reason that he is "determined to show" that he "followed the rules and won fairly and cleanly"? Is the reason because he followed the rules and won fairly and cleanly? Nope, that's not the reason. The reason is, this situation impacts families and friends other than my own.. Oh, and because it "affects the businesses and sponsors that support cycling as well as the sport itself".
Come on. Like if it didn't affect others there wouldn't be reason to show he follow the rules?
How about saying he needs to prove his innocence to retain the title (and $$$!) of being the Tour de France winner? How about to clear his good name? Oh, wait, Tyler already used that one. That explains it.
I admit, there is a part of me that wants Floyd to be innocent. Oh, it's a big part of me. All of the irrational me...
08-16-06 | 11:48 AM
#2
HH, your continued trumpeting of your rationality isn't convincing to me. Take your analysis of his letter, for instance. Do you really believe for a nanosecond that you can determine his guilt based on that one sentence? Come on, get over yourself already. You even misquoted the guy the other day, claiming that he said "I guess I'll say yes" when in fact he said "I'll say no."
Here's my take on Landis' public comments: The guy is a cyclist. How good a cyclist, I don't even know, because I haven't ever watched him ride. I never even heard of the guy-- despite all of his detractors claming he's "my hero"-- until after the scandal broke. So I don't know how good a cyclist he is.
But he's a cyclist. That's all he is. Public speaking, P.R.-- those aren't his strong suits, and it shows. He's not adept at it, and maybe that's a good thing. His public statements are stumbling affairs, and the fact that he's not a spin-master shouldn't be taken as evidence of his guilt.
Here's my take on Landis' public comments: The guy is a cyclist. How good a cyclist, I don't even know, because I haven't ever watched him ride. I never even heard of the guy-- despite all of his detractors claming he's "my hero"-- until after the scandal broke. So I don't know how good a cyclist he is.
But he's a cyclist. That's all he is. Public speaking, P.R.-- those aren't his strong suits, and it shows. He's not adept at it, and maybe that's a good thing. His public statements are stumbling affairs, and the fact that he's not a spin-master shouldn't be taken as evidence of his guilt.
Last edited by Blue Order; 08-16-06 at 11:55 AM.
08-16-06 | 12:22 PM
#3
HH, with a "French" sense of language thinks the word "accused" and the word "guilty" are the exact same word. Therefore, anything he sees or reads translates into "guilty". When Floyd is ultimately cleared of these bogus charges, and the headlines read "Landis Cleared", HH will translate the word "cleared" into the word "guilty". The world is a simple place for those with simple minds.
08-16-06 | 12:23 PM
#4
Thread Starter
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Like with OJ, no one piece of evidence is incriminating. But when you put it all together, including the accused's own behavior, no other alternative explanation makes sense. Unless of course you suspect a mass conspiracy including not trusting the labs...
08-16-06 | 12:48 PM
#5
Originally Posted by Blue Order
HH, your continued trumpeting of your rationality isn't convincing to me. Take your analysis of his letter, for instance. Do you really believe for a nanosecond that you can determine his guilt based on that one sentence? Come on, get over yourself already. You even misquoted the guy the other day, claiming that he said "I guess I'll say yes" when in fact he said "I'll say no."
Here's my take on Landis' public comments: The guy is a cyclist. How good a cyclist, I don't even know, because I haven't ever watched him ride. I never even heard of the guy-- despite all of his detractors claming he's "my hero"-- until after the scandal broke. So I don't know how good a cyclist he is.
But he's a cyclist. That's all he is. Public speaking, P.R.-- those aren't his strong suits, and it shows. He's not adept at it, and maybe that's a good thing. His public statements are stumbling affairs, and the fact that he's not a spin-master shouldn't be taken as evidence of his guilt.
Here's my take on Landis' public comments: The guy is a cyclist. How good a cyclist, I don't even know, because I haven't ever watched him ride. I never even heard of the guy-- despite all of his detractors claming he's "my hero"-- until after the scandal broke. So I don't know how good a cyclist he is.
But he's a cyclist. That's all he is. Public speaking, P.R.-- those aren't his strong suits, and it shows. He's not adept at it, and maybe that's a good thing. His public statements are stumbling affairs, and the fact that he's not a spin-master shouldn't be taken as evidence of his guilt.
08-16-06 | 12:59 PM
#6
Señor Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 18,489
Likes: 1,568
From: Hardy, VA
Bikes: Mostly English - predominantly Raleighs
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
...But when you put it all together, including the accused's own behavior, no other alternative explanation makes sense. ...
"Most of all, I understand that this situation impacts families and friends other than my own. It affects the businesses and sponsors that support cycling as well as the sport itself. It is for this reason that I am determined to show that I followed the rules and won fairly and cleanly. There is a greater integrity at stake here than just my own."
__________________
In search of what to search for.
In search of what to search for.
08-16-06 | 01:41 PM
#8
Señor Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 18,489
Likes: 1,568
From: Hardy, VA
Bikes: Mostly English - predominantly Raleighs
Originally Posted by davefarb
Drugs on his ball. Got busted. Get over it.
__________________
In search of what to search for.
In search of what to search for.
08-16-06 | 09:00 PM
#9
Thread Starter
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by USAZorro
If he goes down, he goes down. If he gets cleared, he gets cleared. No skin off my nose either way. What I have more trouble getting over are the cockamamie attempts to psychoanalyze everything Floyd says or does. These are less than meaningless when they are lifted out of context by someone who has already leapt to their conclusion.
The only possibilities are:
- He did not knowingly dope, but someone who was out to get him with extraordinary access somehow got T into him without him knowing.
- He did not dope, but someone out to get him doctored his samples.
- He did not dope, but the lab made some kind of error, like switching his samples with someone who did dope.
- He knowingly doped (but made some kind of mistake in his normal regime that revealed a 11:1 T/E ratio when normally it is masked, like it is for all the other dopers who passed all their tests...) and is hoping that somehow he'll get off on a technicality.
Serge
08-16-06 | 09:27 PM
#10
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
It's his comments, in context, that, along with all the other evidence, cause me, for one, to reach the conclusions that I reach, not the other way around.
The only possibilities are:
Serge
The only possibilities are:
- He did not knowingly dope, but someone who was out to get him with extraordinary access somehow got T into him without him knowing.
- He did not dope, but someone out to get him doctored his samples.
- He did not dope, but the lab made some kind of error, like switching his samples with someone who did dope.
- He knowingly doped (but made some kind of mistake in his normal regime that revealed a 11:1 T/E ratio when normally it is masked, like it is for all the other dopers who passed all their tests...) and is hoping that somehow he'll get off on a technicality.
Serge
08-16-06 | 10:28 PM
#12
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Yes... are you implying there is some relevance?
08-16-06 | 11:35 PM
#13
semifreddo amartuerer
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 2
From: Northern CA
Bikes: several
Originally Posted by Blue Order
A rush to judgment before we've heard all the facts.
As observers to the affair, we are not held to the same standards, "innocent until proven guilty", etc. We are free to form our own opinions, and unless we're on the USADA panel deciding Landis' case it has absolutely no bearing on the final outcome -- only the USADA panel (and possibly the CAS if/when he appeals) can rush (or take their time) to a judgment of any consequence for Floyd.
Anyway, as to the Ramsey case: no one has yet been convicted. There was suspicion, but the parents were (officially, legally) cleared a while back, when a judge determined that there was more evidence supporting a break-in than the parents committing the crime, and now it appears he was right. Floyd doesn't (yet) have anything like that going for him, other than his own voice.
08-17-06 | 06:48 AM
#14
Señor Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 18,489
Likes: 1,568
From: Hardy, VA
Bikes: Mostly English - predominantly Raleighs
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
It's his comments, in context, that, along with all the other evidence, cause me, for one, to reach the conclusions that I reach, not the other way around.
The only possibilities are:
Serge
The only possibilities are:
- He did not knowingly dope, but someone who was out to get him with extraordinary access somehow got T into him without him knowing.
- He did not dope, but someone out to get him doctored his samples.
- He did not dope, but the lab made some kind of error, like switching his samples with someone who did dope.
- He knowingly doped (but made some kind of mistake in his normal regime that revealed a 11:1 T/E ratio when normally it is masked, like it is for all the other dopers who passed all their tests...) and is hoping that somehow he'll get off on a technicality.
Serge
I agree with your logic, but not your assessment of his actions - especially your reading of the letter you referenced in the initial post.
__________________
In search of what to search for.
In search of what to search for.
08-18-06 | 04:36 PM
#15
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by USAZorro
If he goes down, he goes down. If he gets cleared, he gets cleared.
08-18-06 | 07:45 PM
#16
Señor Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 18,489
Likes: 1,568
From: Hardy, VA
Bikes: Mostly English - predominantly Raleighs
Originally Posted by ggusta
The inability of the "authorities" to demonstrate impartiality and malice towards none are the reason we're never going to know. In all likelihood his career is ruined (hip or no hip).
__________________
In search of what to search for.
In search of what to search for.
08-18-06 | 08:13 PM
#17
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Bikes: Giant TCR2, Santa Cruz V10, Scott Reflex FX15, Speshy BMX
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Like with OJ, no one piece of evidence is incriminating. But when you put it all together, including the accused's own behavior, no other alternative explanation makes sense. Unless of course you suspect a mass conspiracy including not trusting the labs...
08-18-06 | 08:16 PM
#18
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Bikes: Giant TCR2, Santa Cruz V10, Scott Reflex FX15, Speshy BMX
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
It's his comments, in context, that, along with all the other evidence, cause me, for one, to reach the conclusions that I reach, not the other way around.
The only possibilities are:
Serge
The only possibilities are:
- He did not knowingly dope, but someone who was out to get him with extraordinary access somehow got T into him without him knowing.
- He did not dope, but someone out to get him doctored his samples.
- He did not dope, but the lab made some kind of error, like switching his samples with someone who did dope.
- He knowingly doped (but made some kind of mistake in his normal regime that revealed a 11:1 T/E ratio when normally it is masked, like it is for all the other dopers who passed all their tests...) and is hoping that somehow he'll get off on a technicality.
Serge
08-18-06 | 08:29 PM
#19
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 53
From: Ville des Lumières
Bikes: Surly SteamRoller
Originally Posted by jeremyb_nz
But OJ was found not guilty by a jury, its gotta be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
08-18-06 | 08:52 PM
#20
semifreddo amartuerer
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 2
From: Northern CA
Bikes: several
Originally Posted by jeremyb_nz
But OJ was found not guilty by a jury, its gotta be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
08-22-06 | 07:22 PM
#21
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 6
From: Hills of Iowa
Bikes: all diamond frames
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Like with OJ, no one piece of evidence is incriminating. But when you put it all together, including the accused's own behavior, no other alternative explanation makes sense. Unless of course you suspect a mass conspiracy including not trusting the labs...
