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.

Just my thoughts!

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.

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.