Floyd: Bald faced liar?

by hughw on Dec 17, 2006 11:50 PM EST

Chris points to the Eurosport article where Floyd says:

...If they suspend me for two or four years - a humiliation which I hope doesn't happen - it's over for me....I've never taken testosterone, I would have been stupid to because you just can't get away with it [in doping tests]...Even if I'm proved innocent, my reputation is ruined.

So, man to man (rhetorically speaking), tell me: If you think he doped, then he's a bald faced liar, right? You'd have to be a pretty big liar to maintain, falsely, your complete innocence after all this time and exposure, right?

This poll has the advantage of not allowing gray. For the question "Did he do it?", you could equivocate all over the place about the measurements. But cut past all that... do you believe the guy or not?

Poll

Is Floyd Landis a bald faced liar?

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I can't choose either.

I've looked at the arguments on the DP that get into the details of the tests, and I can't say I believe that the adverse analytic finding means anything other than the obvious conclusion.

On the other hand, I feel no need to be agro and rub it in. Bike racing at the top level is hard. I don't think I can understand just how hard. The choices are hard. I don't believe the test results are wrong, but I also don't believe he did anything the top competition didn't. The case isn't over, and I admit there is the possibility that he actually rode clean, but I'm not holding my breath.

Anyway, the story is sad, whatever happened and I wish the best possible conclusion for Floyd and the Sport. I just don't know what that is, but I have a pretty clear idea that it doesn't involve calling him a liar or making him a scapegoat for a system-wide problem. As for the lying, history shows us what happens to those who deny and those who come clean. In the end, denying just pays off much, much better. It is a strategic decision that is made at some point. I don't like it, but I don't deny the reality of the way things are.

by Koppenberg on Dec 18, 2006 3:12 AM EST 0 recs

Reputation

It's pretty hard to read the latest comments from Floyd. It's a bummer. However, I think only those with intimate knowledge of what happened really know if he's telling the truth. All us spectators can do is wait and see.

I hope he can get some perspective on the mess he's in.

If he wants to race, and he's banned for two years, he can come back from that. He's got the hip issue to deal with anyway. I doubt he can come back from that operation in one season anyway.

If he's cleared, he'll bounce back. His reputation isn't ruined.

-K-

by KevinK on Dec 18, 2006 11:06 AM EST 0 recs

I've said it before...

and I'll say it again:

WE WILL NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH!

Well, probably not anyway. Floyd will always maintain his innocence, the lab will always maintain his guilt, and either one of them is lying in his heart, or something went wrong which we will never understand. People need to get used to this. Think "who shot JFK".

by Chris... on Dec 18, 2006 12:43 PM EST 0 recs

I half want to apologize

for putting up yet another doping-centric post and poll. I'm not crazy about the dominance of the topic, but I did it eyes wide open, because I wanted to crystallize what it comes down to for me.

I've decided to believe Floyd. If he wants to abuse my credulity, well, shame on him; but more shame on me if I don't give a guy who's protesting his innocence the benefit of the doubt -- and there is a lot of doubt.

by hughw on Dec 18, 2006 1:08 PM EST 0 recs

I have to admit, I'm a victim of the

"Believe Tyler" thing. I got really burned by it. With Landis, I've tried to keep an open mind, and will wait for the USADA decision before I make any final decisions, but (AUGH, I have to say it) I'm a full-fledged cynic now. Were mistakes made on Landis' tests? Sounds like it. Enough to change my mind about the results of two tests? Probably not.

As an aside, my husband was in Bastogne, Belgium last week, and hit a bike store. There was a big section of Kelme jerseys selling for 10% of the original price, and (of course) he bought one. (He's Bohemian and can't turn a good deal down.) When he got to the cash register, he got into a big discussion about the demise of Kelme with the owner, who finally said, "We know they all dope. They always have, they always will. You Americans are naive to think otherwise. Kelme just got caught." This reinforces what I've always read: most European cycling fans are convinced all cyclists dope. All cyclists.

by Ruthann on Dec 18, 2006 5:04 PM EST 0 recs

Sounds about right to me.

It would be hard to name a sport where cheating wasn't a part of the game. Not getting caught is a very important part of the game within the game. We're even testing chess players now. I think I'm leaning towards the cynical.

by flying dog on Dec 18, 2006 6:43 PM EST up 0 recs

Full disclosure

I may still believe Tyler. I admit the Puerto evidence would be overwhelming. I will believe the Puerto evidence against him -- when it's officially published. What we have to date are leaks and newspaper reports.

The actual "medical" evidence against Tyler -- the test results that got him banned for two years -- is egregiously weak. See yesterday's excellent LA Times article about that.

And all that said, my point is: Even if you got burned by Tyler, it's the most unjust thing in the world if that makes it impossible for you to believe somebody who's telling the truth. It's like the death penalty: punishing even one innocent person that way is unacceptable.

by hughw on Dec 19, 2006 11:06 AM EST up 0 recs

L.A. Times link

Sorry, messed up the link above. Here it is:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sp-dopingside10dec10,0,1804309.story

by hughw on Dec 19, 2006 11:09 AM EST up 0 recs

That's a great reason to hiss at Hamilton

His cynical and fraudulent line of defense, coupled with subsequent revelations, means that the media and much of the cycling community will never believe any one else who ever tests positive, even if they have been wronged.

Thanks for nothing, Tyler. We wish you would vanish to wherever your "vanishing twin" went off to.

by socal on Dec 19, 2006 6:57 PM EST up 0 recs

no truth

I agree with Chris, there is never going to be a final truth in this case. Only FL knows for sure if he doped or not. I have no idea what to think anymore and even if he is guilty as sin, I find it harder and harder to pass judgement against him in any way (although I did throw away my Stage 17 videotape). It just seems insane to build up someone as a cycling hero one minute and then mercilessly trash their reputation the next.

It seems to me that athletes at the highest levels are often driven to succeed with an extreme degree of ambition and desire that skirts at times close to insanity...they are willing to work harder and push themselves further than most of us will ever fathom. In this mindset, and faced with the knowledge that your closest competitors are doping, how hard would it be to resist? Its easy to hate an athlete for being a doper and soiling the integrity of the sport we love, it is alot harder to try to understand and sympathize with the immense psychological pressure and temptation that must face any athlete at that level. The Tammy Thomas story is very enlightening in this regard-- she said that what athletes need most is mental health counseling & anti-doping education, not sanctions or derision.

by Lili on Dec 18, 2006 7:01 PM EST 0 recs

NBA example

I find it quite interesting that the NBA has fined each team involved in the recent brawl $500,000. Not only did the players get individual penalties, but the team's themselves are being financially punished. I think this is a an intriguing idea for cycling. If the team can be fined a seriously substantial amount for any rider who tests positive, I wonder if that would change anything? Alot of times it seems that money talks louder than anything else.

by Lili on Dec 18, 2006 7:27 PM EST 0 recs

Message received

sometime in the last month I know I saw just such an idea on someone's proposal list. Maybe the AIGCP or something? Anyway, although riders have long been regarded as somewhat independent, there's a decent likelihood that sanctions against teams will be one of the new tools to attack doping. As I recall, the proposal was one offense bans the rider, a second bans the team for a month, and the third offense bans the team for a year. Something to that effect.

by Chris... on Dec 19, 2006 1:02 PM EST up 0 recs

It's been my idea all along

teams should be punished along with riders.

by Mr Van P on Dec 19, 2006 3:46 PM EST up 0 recs

T-mobile requires their riders pay back

all the money that they have been paid if they are caught. That's a big gamble and removes a lot of temptation to cheat. I'd be very surprised if any body thought it was worth the risk. I think the sponsors also should be able to seek damages if there is negligence by the management of their teams.

by flying dog on Dec 19, 2006 7:54 PM EST up 0 recs

That's a good idea

If it's a 100% downside, I doubt many riders would tempt fate, even if the chances of getting caught are slim.

-K-

by KevinK on Dec 20, 2006 12:42 PM EST up 0 recs

Sounds good, but it's just symbolic

The two NBA teams involved in this are both owned by billionaires. $500,000 to them is a symbolic penalty but hurts them less than losing $500 would hurt you or me.

Now if they had fined the Knicks coach or the most blameworthy player an entire season's compensation, with the money coming out of his own pocket, that would get someone's attention.

by socal on Dec 20, 2006 12:25 AM EST up 0 recs

I will break my doping discussion boycott

temporarily, to say this. If a rider is caught, then the team should be suspended from pro tour events just like the rider. The teams need to do a better job of policing their own. That would clean it up quickly and it wouldn't be just symbolic.

by Mr Van P on Dec 22, 2006 12:19 AM EST 0 recs