deitman

Since Velonews won't load on either my computer or Iphone, and navigating through three merged and now diverging threads is killing me...I have an essay I'd like to share:

My $12.42 worth....

While I'm not a fan of Landis or his camp...there's some interesting things to point out with this revelation that strike me...

1. Funny enough, the last portion of his book (by Arnie Baker, a respected physician and cyclist in his own right) details the scientific protocols used by the drug-testing lab responsible for the positive result, and the lack of following basic scientific procedures to do so. HIS scientist is not the only one critical of the testing procedure of the french lab at the time, but also the UCLA lab that was not allowed to be called as a witness in his defense was critical of the french procedures. Ironically, now Landis says he was doping, but not in the manner for which he was suspended.

2. Landis has been unable to recover his form or sponsorship unless he brings said sponsors with him as part of the team that signs him...one could say he was "blackballed" and this is a way to maximize getting back at those who he believes are blackballing him. But is he being "blackballed" because his ability does not warrant placement within a top team or because people within the sport knew (or strongly suspected) what Landis has admitted...doping since 2002.

3. He focuses on American cyclists, some of whom are either among the most drug-tested professional athletes in recent years (Armstrong), or have been part of pioneering, biological passport programs that led UCI into its current biological passport protocols (Garmin, Columbia, even Astana last year had the passport). Hmmmmm...if those cyclists were/are, then it not only invalidates this year's drug testing protocols, but those by the teams from the previous years (and those team administered results were made available if you wanted them)...and why no mention of foreign cyclists except to mention them nebulously as "former team members"?

4. The rhetoric and heavy-handed guilty until proven innocent tactics by WADA seem amateurish and political at best, but Landis' admission only seems to reinforce that they are correct even when they screw up finding an athlete guilty of doping.

5. Landis chose to speak exclusively with a credible journalist from an outlet OUTSIDE THE CYCLING WORLD (Bonnie Ford of ESPN--an excellent investigative journalist) to bring greater attention to his claim/himself...

As for any debate on whether Armstrong himself is clean or not...only a positive test or self-admission will prove that he is not clean. Until then, I have to (somewhat hesitantly) believe that while he may have sometime in the past (pre-cancer perhaps?), he cannot risk the negative exposure that such behavior would have on the LIVESTRONG effort...his ego (yeah its big) dictates that this legacy is more important to him than his cycling results.