In the International Herald Tribune:Samuel Abt: Hard to make sense of the Landis case
The Guardian:
William Fotheringham: Landis case erodes all trust in Tour
In the New York Times:
Selena Roberts: Whiskey Defense: Seems Like Another Whopper
Ian Austen: An Accusation of Duplicity, a Reputation for Honesty
In the Times of London:
Paul Kimmage: Landis turned the race on its head. But don't ask me to cheer for him.
UPDATE: Floyd canceled for the "Today Show" Monday. He supposedly will reschedule later in the week. Makes sense. There's nothing new -- yet.
8 comments:
great articles I wouldn't have normally found - thanks '03
know we're all bummed by all this and I guess we'll know more this week, but I can't help thinking this is a little like Tyler's situation ...
(as you know, I think they're all kind of juiced) so Tyler & Floyd may be guilty of something, but not what they are charged with (VERY unlikely Tyler used someone else's blood to gain any advantage - and seems as unlikely that Floyd would have used testosterone late in a 3 week Tour to help recover for a mt stage attack)
or am I missing something here?
Hey Rider (always good to hear from you),
Here's something that has been bothering me:
During Stage 17, Landis tried to get someone from the original breakaway group to go with him to share in the work with the tacit promise that Landis would "gift" him the stage victory. Sound strategy -- AND the co-worker would have been the person tested.
Of course, I may be more incidious in my thinking than Landis was in his stragtegy. There's really no way of knowing unless Landis does a "Lemond" and tells the whole truth following the B sample.
What troubles me about Landis's well-orchestrated public relations campaign these past few days is that that it doesn't really fit Landis. You can tell how uncomfortbable he is with it, but he is deferring to professional advice. He'll continue the campaign Monday morning on the "Today Show." That should be a tough interview (right!).
There's an old saying that if something, like Stage 17, is too good to be true, then it probably isn't true.
Cycling makes us all want to believe.
We all wanted to believe in Floyd that day.
But have we only misled ourselves?
Tyler Hamilton came up with his own cookoo story on why his situation wasn't doping. Now Landis will have his.
Maybe it's true.
Maybe not.
That's the sad misfortune of this whole sorry situation.
agree with the cookooness, PR scene, and ancedotal 'other winner would get tested' possibilities, but what still baffles me is what is he really being accused of?
I know he has a t/e ratio too high, but how does someone think he got that high ratio that helped with his performance?
fact is, he did win the stage in dramatic fashion, so is there reason to believe that some testosterone cream or a shot/patch on the butt caused that victory and showed up on the test?
or is there some other performance enhancement that would help him win the stage and also cause the high ratio?
I'm not a afraid to believe ... but I've yet to hear a scenario that ties the high ratio to his performance on that key stage?
and I'm counting on the crankset for that insight!!
Best explanation I've read is the patch/cream scenario, which would have given him a boost.
I just wish Floyd would stop playing dumb about doping. These guys know all the tricks, believe me. It would be difficult if not impossible to be oblivious to the degree that Floyd has been claiming the past few days. I don't think playing dumb serves him well, to be honest. They all ride in the gray area, and you need to be pretty aware of the difference between what you can do and what you can't do to move in that area. Floyd understands. Pretending he doesn't makes him look foolish, even guilty.
That said, I still want to believe in him.
I want to believe in Lance.
I want to believe in Ullrich and Basso.
And I wish Greg Lemond would stop trying to sell his damn bikes.
Newbie,
I agree with you in that even if the t/e ratio is positive from the B sample, it doesn't make any sense. Loading up on the testosterone wouldn't have helped him.
Its the danger in all of these doping tests...sure we discovered something erroneous from the tests, but does it make sense? It's like saying, "well we had to strip the title from the World Record Holder for Consecutive days sleeping. Why? Well we found excess amphetemines in his urine."
Wouldn't be "funny" if the B test came up negative (meaning the first test was a false positive) and we all had to say, "Never mind"?
well, it would seem that its a possibility. From what I've read, they test the "b" sample with a little more vigor. Those tests whould determine if the ratio was due to his own physiology or from an outside source...I also wonder if they will be testing his urine for ethanol levels and that also could be central to his defense. I know blood is more accurate in determining alcohol levels, but I'm pretty sure that it takes a full 24 hours for your body to metabolise and rid itself of it.
So I could easily hear them say...yes the ratio was similar, markedly high, but it was discovered that the testosterone was proved to be naturally occuring and he had quite a bit of alcohol in his urine.
But I'm not really holding my breath for that one...
All possible scenarios. I guess we can't find out too soon.
Post a Comment