From Floyd's website:

Let's say he's guilty. If he tells the truth, he, and all those that support him and depend on him are cooked for sure.

On the other hand, if he claims he's innocent, he still has a chance of getting off on a technicality. Okay, so it didn't work for Tyler, but it has worked for others.

Besides, if he tells the truth, the whole truth, exposing everyone who is involved, and exposing the truth about the pervasive use of doping in the peloton, then he can expect the same treatment from Armstrong et al that they gave Simeoni for telling the truth...

I think you are right about that. The "there is greater integrity" bit struck me the first time I read it, and thinking about it more now, I think he's basically saying something to the effect that "this whole business is pretty dirty".

So the chances of seeing that tell-all book from him, I think, are pretty slim. At least, for quite some number of years.

You are right Landis is no longer an individual and now a business. Once one puts themselves up there as a brand they corrupt the sportsman.

Looking at Floyd's website, I am amazed at how similar his business is to Armstrong's. I see that Floyd also has his own Foundation.

Tyler has his own foundation too.

While you do have a point, consider also that Floyd must also do all the same things if he believes he is not guilty.

But isn't this all predicated on the fact that Landis is guilty?

Well, yes. That's why I wrote, Let's say he is guilty as the first sentence.

It's true that he would have to do everything he's doing if he was innocent, but I would have expected a different reaction from him, especially in the first days. Let's just say he was acting way too resigned to probably losing way too early.

So. Let's say he is innocent. That would mean he would have NO IDEA why the A sample came up positive. Now, why would he then say (as he and his team did in the first few days) that he fully expected the B sample to come up positive too? Why would he say that? If he were innocent, why would he expect that? If he were innocent, wouldn't an error in the lab testing the A sample - which in all probability would not be repeated for the B sample - be just as likely an explanation for why the A sample came up positive as anything else?

Now. Let's say he's guilty. And the A sample showed it (which it did). Now does it make sense why he would expect and say that he expected for the B sample to show positive as well? The only reason for him to expect that the B sample would be positive, is because he knew why the A sample came up positive. And the only way he could know why the A sample came up positive is because he knew he was guilty.

His behavior and statements in the first few days were much more consistent with being guilty than being innocent.

Hey, it's killing me too. And I'm still holding out hope that he's actually innocent, but I realize that hope is completely irrational.

There's a great blog by landis on how he's innocent! It's on his new web site- Hotpee.com.

He might as well get money for writing a book, unless he thinks he can come back to pro cycling. Jose Canseco's doing pretty well, right?

And Floyd would make a lot of money on a book detailing any doping by Lance; he should have it printed in French too.

If I were Landis, I would expect the same treatment from that lab that they gave Armstrong. Yes, I would expect them to say the 'B' sample was also the out of spec. I just don't trust the French lab. Quite honestly, if those tests were done in any recognized American lab, I would say case closed and Pereiro, congrats. Sorry if you think I don't trust that French lab, but I don't. Anyhoo, I have stated in the past, and still feel, that Landis must be innocent until proven guilty beyond a doubt. The reason for that is that if he were to be proven guilty, LIFETIME BAN, no exceptions. Capital punishment. I have no sympathy for those using PEDs. So with a 'life on the line', I think we have to assume innocence until proven guilty. Just my incoherent ramblings on the subject.

Easy to say in retrospect.

But until Lance Armstrong raised questions about the lab on Larry King, Floyd made no mention about the lab itself being a possible cause of the test results. If that's what Floyd was thinking at the time he said he suspected the B sample would be positive too, then you'd think he would have put that possibility out there along with all the other lame excuses he was floating at the time.

If every athlete who ever had a positive test was telling the truth, the tests would all have been false positives. I'd like to contribute to the Landis or Tyler Hamilton foundation, but I can't foot it right now, I already contribute so much to the Mike Tyson, OJ Simpson and Pete Rose foundations.

IMO, a pool of labs ought to be utilized to test the samples. Put a bunch of them in a hat and when a sample is taken, pick a lab from the hat. It would help remove any question of bias or pre-disposition on the part of the lab.

What does it mean when a clean athlete can beat dirty ones competition after competition, year after year? That this athletic specimen (Armstrong) is a genetic freak, a one in 10 million wunderkind (he needs to stop dicking around with Sheryl and get onto someone that can give him some progeny). Now immediately after the retirement of this American Hero comes another clean athlete who can handily beat dirty ones. Hmmm... says to me the drugs are a complete waste of money, time and risk to ones athletic career. No it doesn't, and it doesn't say that to any of you either. Multiple testing labs? Nah... just decrimininalize drug use. Clean and fair athletic competition ended when the drugs were invented. Athletes will be forced by their handlers to do what will enable them to win. If the bar keeps being raised by the labs increasing ability to detect various PED's the coaches and doctors have to resort to ever more esoteric (dangerous) substances to stay ahead of detection. Close the door on all that. Its the only practical and sane solution.

H

But what of the children!

[OT]I think his cancer treatment prevents the possibility of progeny.[/OT]

Luke? Grace? The other daughter? Yeah, cancer treatment sure stopped Lance from having kids...

(he banked some live ones just before his treatments began, if he's to be believed in It's Not About The Bike)

The problem with all sports nowadays there is too much money involved.


When they got paid peanuts, there was not the saem cheating (well part from the female russians that where not)

Comment I was responding to was in reference to FUTURE children.

I get pretty tired of the "logic" of how guilty people are best served by claiming they're innocent. It's so pathetically obvious I can only conclude your'e implying that claiming innocence somehow proves guilt.

Please explain this to me. What do you base this on? Do you know the French lab, and how it works? Do you actually know how many FRENCH athletes (I'm talking athletics here) they already caught this year through Chatenay Malabry's testing?

Please recheck your files...and your joke about the Germans is lousy too (and I'm not French ) )

Have a nice day

I'm not weighing in to defend the fellow you responded to, but I have to ask if you've taken a look at the powerpoint presentation that Floyd's physician and lawyers have put together? I have no way of knowing the true motive for WADA and UCI making the statements, and holding the positions that they have about his case, but it looks like LNDD has made a hash out of just about everything they possibly could have. I don't think they can even prove the sample was Floyd's.

If you have been following doping scandals in general you would know that this lab (LNDD) has a history of bad practice that is well documented.

The evidence in the Landis case only further confirms not only the labs general sloppiness and incompetence but thier willingness to violate fair medical and lab practices and WADA's failure to sanction the lab.

Unfortunately, poor or incompetent WADA leaders would rather see Landis go down than have all of thier faults exposed. The system is broken both for the athletes and the public. More thorough testing which is not so easily gotten around needs to be implimented. Also, an athlete has no recourse to hold the WADA or USADA responsible for upholding thier own standards. For bringing economically damaging frivolous charges again'st them. Given the possible error in this testing it should require that an athlete shows a pattern of irregular tests or if based off of one test the results must be beyond a reasonable doubt and show no errors in the testing method.

International law should allow athletes to sue these agencies for damages to hold the agencies up to a higher standard. They answer to no one.

What's going to come out in the end of this is how incompetent WADA leadership has been in dealing with poor quality labs and non unified international standards for testing.

What's more is that if pro teams had to pay extra money to finance the more thorough drug testing they would be less inclined to turn a blind eye to the doping that's going on.

In many cases all the sponser wants is thier team to win. Doping is fine as long as you don't get caught. Then if you get caught we abandon you.