WOW, One of USADA's own doctors says test wrong on Floyd!
 

I think the strongest thing here is that he's not only been on the USADA's independent anti-doping board but they recently renewed his contract for two more years. This looks REALLY strong for Floyd. I'm still not convinced he'll get off, but to me, THIS doctor's testimony (he was NOT paid for his testimony/time) is good enough to believe that Floyd was not proven guilty.

Intriguing. This whole thing is so confusing I don't know what to believe anymore.

I'm thinking it's going the way of NFL or body building. Nudge, nudge, wink wink. There's no doping here, right my extremely well-muscled, faster than belief, superhuman competitors?

Right because we're going to believe your assumptions or the claims of a suspect lab (that's been strongly criticized by WADA's independent counsel/investigation) over that of a USADA anti-doping expert.

IF it wasn't for Flandis' true colors shining through with the Lamond comments (from his manager but more so from the letter he wrote in the Daily Peloton saying he would tell about the abuse Lemond suffered as a child) I would be cheering. As it is doping or not he is a great big pile of steaming #%$@. Even if he is the winner of the Tour and he did it clean, he will forever be a looser in my book. And yes, even if he checks himself into rehab.

That was in a web forum and I thought it was never proven that Floyd actually wrote that post.

was the doctor abused as a child, or is he the one who thinks aliens are coming? What a f--ing circus.

From a Velonews article:

Landis said he forgot about the incident until November, when he read stories quoting LeMond as having said that Landis had confessed to him during the aforementioned phone call.

That led to the now-infamous Internet posting where Landis wrote in part that, "If LeMond ever opens his mouth again and the word Floyd comes out, I will tell you all some things that you will wish you didn't know and unfortunately I will have entered the race to the bottom which is now in progress."

That brought another phone call, this time from LeMond to Landis.

"I didn't want to talk again and asked him what he wanted. He wasn't happy," recalled Landis. "What I wrote [on the Internet] wasn't wise. I'm sorry that I alluded to [what happened in his childhood], but he said I'm writing a book, so I could say whatever I wanted to. Then I tried to clarify that I did not admit to using testosterone, but he said he remembered differently. I said that's not what happened, but no matter what I would not divulge [his secret] to the public."

He said he would not divulge the secret, only taunt and intimidate him with it. Classy guy.

Too bad, a major lapse in judgement.

Left me cry'n in my beer. I had a signed picture with him from the ToG and two posters up in garage. If he found out Lamond was a cross dresser or a had a crack habit I could still hang with him. But he put down a line I can not cross.

Kind of like when I found out about Santa or what a jacka33 Lary Bird is in real life.

Is Larry Bird really that bad?

i like how u guys talk about these ppl like u know them.

How do you know we aren't them? lol.

RyanF = Greg Lemond

and I am Tom Boonen.

Rather like doping for the 06 TdF?

Good for you. When confronted with contradictory information you should be confused and then judge the information as it makes sense to you. If at the end of the arguements you are still confused logic dictates that you need to revert to the pre-allegation belief that he is clear.

It is interesting that many people will ignore contradictory information because it doesn't suite their preconceived beliefs. I think some people here will believe Landis doped regardless of any evidence to the contrary- even an hypothetical admission of malicious tampering.

This isn't news. The T:E ratio could never tell you that doping occurred. It can tell you that doping MAY have occurred, but there's absolutely no way that the T:E ratio confirms the use of exogenous testosterone.

Right there is the bottom line of this whole deal and why it is a lose-lose scenario for cycling as a whole.

If Floyd is cleared, those that were against him to start with will have all the ammunition they need to claim he got off on a technicality.

If he is convicted, those that were for him will have an equally strong argument that he was hosed.

There is a third category (in which I fall, for the record) that figures that any pro rider capable of winning a major race has had some assistance along the way but the doping gestapo want a trophy fish so badly, they will do anything to land it - within their own guidelines or not. Maybe they didn’t fabricate the test results, but it is clear that once they were on the scent the process to get a desired result was aided along the way.

The UCI already announcing they’ll appeal if Floyd gets off is no surprise and is expected, as is a Landis camp appeal if he is not. But that shows the mindset of the powers that be. “It’s in the hands of the national organizations... unless they come to a conclusion other than the one we want.”

No matter how the panel rules, 99 percent of people’s minds are already made up. Nothing is going to change. All I know is Floyd Landis crossed the line first - ahead of a rider implicated in his own right as it turns out - so whatever is determined in a court room nearly a year after the fact is meaningless.

A big +1. I think both sides are just trying to confuse us. Now there's independent witnesses that are doing the same...

Sigh...

Scrap all the other stuff from earlier. Forget Lemond. All you need to know about the lab techs on the stand is that they were not very good at what they do, LNDD has a 300% higher rate of testosterone positives than other WADA labs, one tech knew she was testing Floyds sample, and by the way you can't fire anyone in France so they could indeed be morons and the lab can't do anything about it.

OK, now go read the transcript at http://trustbut.blogspot.com/search/label/hearing.

I was laughing out loud watching this yesterday. Herr Doktor Professor Wolfram Meier-Augenstein really stuck the knife into USADA and twisted it. Young kept throwing him wild curveballs and Herr Doktor would simple catch the ball, toss it up, and smack a homerun. At the beginning of all this it was pretty clear that Floyd should/would get off on technicalities (thats assuming USADA isn't on an agenda driven hunt which they are), but after yesterday he really looks innocent (or not guilty) and as Trustbutverify says, USADA now will have a hard time proving LNDD is not a reincarnation of muppet labs.

http://images.wikia.com/muppet/image...paperclips.jpg
Mongongu and Hue-Frelat


After yesterday, here's pretty much what LNDD looks like now:
Hue-Frelat testing Floyd sample:
http://images.wikia.com/muppet/image....firepaper.jpg

H'm, let me check my back pocket, I may have a few straws here.... :D

In all seriousness, this is all part of what should be happening in these cases. And you should keep in mind that the USADA has had many good days on the stand, that numerous defense theories did not pan out (e.g. the alleged gaps in the chain of custody), and that several other scientists have said it is clear that Landis had exogenous testosterone in his system.

All of these items are components of a larger picture. Cherry-picking one or two to arrive at a preferred conclusion is not justifiable, especially if you are not an expert in the relevant scientific fields.

Even if Landis doped the ADA system doens't get to break the rules. Someone has to hold the moral high ground. In western society throwing out everything both sides have claimed leaves us with dropping the allegations.

Regardless of the outcome, hopefully everyone in the anti-doping system learns to cross every i and dot every t (and to not use white out) so that future cases are not made on the validity of the test results.

But you're missing the point of the doctor's testimony. He's saying the T:E ratio was such that it shows testosterone doping could NOT have occurred (at least from all the test data he's ever seen). There's a subtle but important difference there.

Actually, the quote you supplied us says he could not confirm doping occurred, not that it could not have occurred.

No, I caught that, but ultimately it doesn't mean anything. I've seen some really strange presentations of appendicitis too--ones that made me think the patient couldn't possibly have appendicitis--until the CT scan showed it to me.

The "I've never seen that, so it must be something else" approach is one of the most dangerous fallacies in all of medicine.

:roflmao:

Next we will find out Mongongu is dating a rider from Ag2r.:eek: