Floyd Landis Positively False on Tour
Floyd Landis is on Talk Of The Nation on NPR right now, pleading his innocence regarding winning the 2006 Tour De France and then being reported as testing positive for doping.
———————
UPDATE: Truth But Verify stated there is a lot wrong in this post but when asked to be specific came out with a list of irrelevant arguments against points never expressed.
I find it humorous that a site dedicated to truth, is so defensive about Floyd Landis, that assumptions are made about anybody who expresses an opinion of Landis being guilty.
For example TBV says “He [Landis] does not talk about “French Conspiracy”, he complains about incompetence at a particular laboratory that happens to be in France. That some jingoistic yahoos turn that into the great conspiracy is beyond his control.” This is of course very true - but in the post below I never accused Landis of expressing that opinion or of being responsible for the people who did. Instead I talked about the “many people - in wanting to believe Floyd”, so in the world where you don’t like to see somebody disbelieve Landis you defend him even on points where he hasn’t been attacked.
The rest of the list that was supposedly wrong on Irish KC was refuted with pure opinion, and more arguments against points that weren’t made in the first place.
Rather than Truth But Verify it might be better called Belief But Assume (and here’s a load of resources so we must be objective)
TBV comments are here [/UPDATE]
————————————
And before we begin, let’s calm down with a painting I did of Ireland’s stage race, The Rás (An Rás Tailteann). It was won by Stephen Roche eight years before that year he won the Tour, the Giro, and the World Championship:
I spoke about Landis last year. Right now he is on a book tour (”Positively False: The Real Story of How I Won the Tour de France“) promoting his innocence and criticising the procedures in place by the anti-doping agencies for establishing that innocence - assuming he is found to be.
I think his case is with the Court of Arbitration for Sport His case is with the American Arbitration Association and their verdict due possibly in a couple of days, but there is no strict timetable.
Landis doesn’t make a good case, not in how he talks. He whinges a lot about the anti-doping agencies in general, and never accepts that any cyclist is responsible for doping or creating the suspicion in the sport despite the level of doping in cycling that has been established without argument.
He’s had a whole year to get his defence right yet I don’t hear him talking the science much - which is very odd considering it is the science that will exonerate him - if anything does. His tone and approach reminds me very much - still - of Irish swimming dope star Michelle Smyth de Bruin.
Last year I noticed how many people - in wanting to believe Floyd - chose to castigate the anti-doping agency simply because they are French, and therefore they were obviously anti-American. Suffice to say I didn’t agree with that.
From how he cycled in that Tour, to how he has spoken about the doping allegations against him since, and from how he spoke about drugs in cycling before he even started last year’s Tour - I don’t believe him.
After an entire program I know next to nothing about the procedures employed by the Anti-Doping Agency that Landis criticises so much, and practically nothing about his specific case. A whole program? His case on the radio was 99% emotional and 1% scientific.
Oh, that was me speaking as a cyclist, an Irish cyclist, in KC.
[UPDATE: Almost 3 years after this radio programme and blogpost, in May 2010, Floyd Landis admitted to doping from June 2002 through his victory in the 2006 Tour de France.
In November 2011 Landis was convicted by a French court for his role in hacking into the computers of the anti-doping lab that caught him cheating at the 2006 Tour de France.
In August 2012, Landis admitted to fraud committed when he raised his legal defence fund back when he was denying doping in 2007, and was ordered to pay $487,000 in restitution. He reached a deal on sentencing for the fraud charges
All of which means, among other things, that the website Belief But Assume is, and always was, an utter joke.
And for good measure Floyd Landis’ doping admissions in 2010 played their role in ultimately revealing in 2012 that Lance Armstrong is the greatest cheat and hypocrite that sport has ever known.]
See Also:
• My Cycle Across America
• County Kildare as a Training Ground for Cycling Across America
• Book: Cycling Across America (by me)
Eolaí gan Fhéile:
Mr. M thinks he’s dirty on this one as well. I watched an interview with him on the big Canadian news show The National a while back, and just as you say, he was heatedly denying it without offering any real explanation and leaning on emotion rather than science.
It might be time for you to do some actual research. Many of your theoretical proofs are either dead wrong or lacking factual support. Firstly, there has been a lot of discussion of the science over the last year. What do you think the Wiki defense documents were all about? Lots of scientific mistakes, no reproducibility in the tests, No agreement as to what constitutes a positive. In at least two other WADA labs his test would have been reported as negative. 300 pages of scientific analysis. If you bothered to look you would have found plenty of data to digest. Now that the hearing itself is over, the science argument is moot.
By the way- his case is being tried by USADA not the AAA. they used AAA protocol, but it is not the same thing. So much of your basic ‘fact’ is incorrect it leads me to the conclusion that your opinion is not based on any real research- or any research at all- its the same emotional argument you say proves he’s guilty. The only difference is you call your argument valid and his phony.
Mark, you missed the point. I made a full explanation over on Trust But Verify.
The point about the lack of science was solely in reference to this radio programme and Floyd’s performance on it. The science is moot to the case I agree, which is why I was expressing a human based opinion to Floyd’s behaviour.
I do not say his emotional argument proves he’s guilty, rather it’s part of the reason why I currently believe he’s guilty. However I would not want that to have been used in place of the science during the actual case.
If you bothered to read the post you have commented on you would see it was based on the radio programme that was I was live blogging.
I haven’t proposed any theoretical proofs or facts. I have done plenty of research but that was not what his post was about. This was an opinion piece based on factors I wouldn’t want used to convict him.
I talk about Floyd’s tone, and his approach. I do not call his argument phony - in fact I criticize the fact that on the radio he didn’t make his argument - so how could I call it phony. Neither do I call my argument valid - but it’s very apparent you didn’t read the post very well.
Landis may well be innocent, and as I said, “it is the science that will exonerate him - if anything does”, but right now I choose to not believe him. It’s that simple. It doesn’t prove he’s guilty.
Read my opening sentence, and then read the last sentence of the 2nd last paragraph. Radio. If I had wanted to discuss the last year - believe me you would have had a longer post.
I think the point of the radio interview was to sell a book, in which the science and his defense is covered more in depth. It’s called marketing. No author on a book tour will give a comprehensive description of the entire book; if they did, then why would the audience need to read it. The scientific discussion and defense you found lacking in the interview is covered in his book, which he is trying to sell. I agree the interview was somewhat superficial, but I have been following this story for some time now. However, others who are not cycling geeks (and I use that phrase lovingly!) may have heard a sufficient amount of information to pique their curiosity enough to purchase the book and learn more. At least that is what the publisher is hoping.
Just my thoughts!
Lilly, you could well be right, that the appearance of Floyd on the NPR show was solely a marketing one - but I’ve never come across a non-fiction book that cannot be dicussed in detail on a half-hour show for fear of removing the need to read the book. Is it a very short book?
During the interview I didn’t hear him saying, “In the book I show that the science says…” Instead I heard an emotional human interest story - which presumably the book also covers.
So why is the scientific defence something that can’t be discussed for fear of hurting book sales, when explaining the basis behind his public comments following the initial doping allegations is judged okay enough not to hurt book sales?
But even if his radio appearance was as cynical as you suggest - skipping any sort of summary of his scientific defence, but instead maximising suspense as an exercise in marketing so as to make more profit and pay for his case - that doesn’t alter my opinion based on his behaviour; it just gives a reason for that behaviour.
And the expression of my belief based on that behaviour was the point of the post. It’s called marketing.