Floyd’s “B” Sample Results: POSITIVE!
Aug 5th, 2006 | By Fredcaster | Category: GeneralThe results of the tests on Floyd Landis’ “B” sample are in and they confirm the previous findings that he had an elevated T/E ratio. As a result, here is what is to be expected over the next days, weeks and months:
- Floyd will be stripped of his Tour de France title.
- Oscar Pereiro will be declared the Tour champion
- Floyd will be fired by his Phonak team.
- Floyd will face a 2-year suspension from professional cycling.
- Under the new rider code of ethics, Floyd will not be eligible to join another ProTour team for at least 4 years.
- There will be months of legal wrangling as Floyd tries to defend his reputation and regain his status as a ProTour rider.
This whole thing stinks.
So is the high-level of testosterone found in the sample now confirmed to be artificial? Or is that something that is still for debate. I’m disappointed to hear about cases like this.
We should be hearing outrage over this. How could this guy, Landis, stand in front of a microphone and lie so many times and not incur the wrath of anyone who cares about this sport??
David, you’ve had to apologise on your podcast for getting overly worked up with Basso and Ullrich when the Operacion Puerta story broke. Where is that indignation now?
With all due respect – and a lot of respect is due, by the way – the overwhelming evidence against Landis compells you and anyone who loves this sport to apply the same standard for Landis.
Floyd cheated, then lied, and now his only hope is for a victory on some kind of legal technicality. Just like Lance, who tested positive for EPO on 6 samples in 1999, but got the UCI to invalidate those results on a legal technicality.
Truth is, unless someone spike his sample, Landis cheated. The lawyers may claim something different, but the chemists all know the truth!
My gut is telling me there is some other explanation. Landis doesn’t come across as someone who would resort to cheating to acheive a race win. If you question Landis’ motives you’ve got to question the official’s motives as well. I wouldn’t close the book on this whole affair just yet.
There is a point whereby the notion of reasonable doubt applies. When Landis’ own lawyers give their ok to the test protocols used on the B sample, then we have to think that the fat lady has sung for Floyd.
How far does one take faith? Am I to believe Ben Johnson was clean? Or that Carl Lewis never took any banned substances? Or that a piece of Tyler Hamilton’s fetal twin is still producing foreign DNA in Tyler’s body?
Or is it just about Landis, that sweet-faced kid from Pennsylvania? Do you know him personally? He even had trouble saying “I have never taken banned substances.” His initial statements were more to the effect of “I’m not in any doping protocol”… or “No, c’mon!”…
Would you allow Landis to continue to race at this point? How far are you willing to take your gut feeling? If you were a race director, would you let him race?
I do not know Floyd personally. He and his team are abiding by the rules they agreed to as part of the Pro Tour. I would not let him race, as is required by these same rules. But I am not ready to label him a cheat until all avenues are investigated.
I would like to endorse what afroncio has said. Much and all as I enjoy David’s very insightful take of the World of Cycling, I think there is a pronounced difference in some of the language used when he talks about Landis now compared to the way he spoke about Heras a few months back. Have a listen to Fredcast #11 and seek to 13m40s. David is talking about how Denis Menchov cannot be declared the Vuelta winner because Heras is continuing to mount legal challenges:
Now something tells me that we might all have to wait quite some time before we hear similar words uttered as an admonishment to Floyd to let Oscar have the Maillot Jaune! Due process is OK after all so long is it continues to favour the good guy 🙂
But that all said, David’s reaction is a very human one. We all want to think that ‘our’ leading athletes have achieved what they have fairly. And when something like this happens, we clutch at straws to convince ourselves and whoever cares to listen that there must be some mistake – even if deep down we know there’s usually no smoke without fire.
So this Fredcast listener will just acknowledge the very understandable bias and keep listening.
Keep up the good work David!