cfforum

Cast your vote and see the results on Cycle Folsom.

I think Landis was doping, so from that perspective I think the verdict was correct. My hope is that this case is more far reaching than just Floyd' innocence/guilt is concerned. The verdict was 2-1 which means at least one panel member believed he was innnocent; one more vote in his favor and he would be innocent.

What I hope will follow as a result, is just how flawed the system is and that significant changes must be made. I'd like to see the testing be moved to a credible lab that might be selected by the unanimous consensus of representatives from all the relavent parties. Leaks from the lab would automatically disqualify that lab from future testing. What are your thoughts on Dick Pound and the role he has played in cycling?

I hope that significant changes for the good will follow in the wake of this legal action, unfortunately, I believe it will be business as usual.

I wish he was clean, but I have a hard time believing so now. Not just because of the verdict, but the way he has conducted himself, his many excuses, and the reasonings now that have come out for cyclists to use testosterone in small amounts for recovery, not for building mass.

I cast my vote therefore with Steve.

Maybe if I read the book I would think differently. However, I believe I'd only agree with what I already know, the labs need better adherence to process and procedure. When the tests are clean, no one blaims process or procedure for failure, so how can we do so when they come back guilty?

In case you want to see some of the key points I've summarized from Floyd's book take a look at this topic: http://cfforum.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=102

=- Hairy Curt

I guess it will boil down to whether or not Landis has enough money to appeal. I believe Landis will have a better chance of winning in front of CAS then USADA. That doesn't mean I believe he is innocent. I believe that in the past, a large majority were guilty. Fewer are willing to take the risk now. I admit my view is pretty pessimistic. As a Cat II junior in the late 80s I had teamates taking drugs, and testing positive. When million dollars are the line, the cyling culture for 30 years has been to turn to drugs. I have a hard time believe that 2006 was any different. Obviously 2007 was no different.

I know several who have read Landis' book though, and they have all said it is very convincing in his defence. I guess I need to read the book.

Landis today announced he will appeal:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/13495.0.html

The race isn't over yet!

What else can he do? He's in limbo for 2 years anyways because he's technically been found guilty of doping. After his 2 years are up (Ask Tyler Hamilton) if he does not do a David Millar and confess his sins and become an anti-doping zealot, then no team is going to let him participate in any big events.

Read here: http://www.tylerhamilton.com/ starting at May 16, 2007. Appears that the promoters for the Giro didn't want any team that Tyler was on.

Unless Floyd or Tyler prostrate themselves before WADA and other like bodies and admit the are guilty, they are through.

Even Tyler, who has served his "sentence" is not showing up at any major events. You have to wonder about a system like that.

Yea I was shocked to see Tyler at the US Pro, and even more so to see him do well. I don't think Tyler could even get on a low budget domestic team now.

Certainly the circumstances and tactics played a part, but here is another way to look at it: In the 2006 Tour de France, Oscar Pereiro lost 26’26” seconds in Stage 11, a 211 KM trek through the Pyrenees finishing in 56th place on the stage. Two days later, on a relatively flat stage, he finished in second 29’57” ahead of the peloton.

Where as, four days later on Stage 16, Landis lost 10’04” on a trek through the Alps losing the yellow jersey to Pereiro, but then the following day, won the stage by 5’42” retaking. Which performance, or rather turn of events, would be considered more super human based on pure numbers? Oscar’s recovery and rise to leadership in the Tour, or Landis’?

Mark, you are a fountain of knowledge, a veritable cornucopia of facts. I didn't know that about Oscar. And if I'm not mistaken, immediately after Landis was declared under suspicion, Oscar became very vocal about being the Tour winner, demanding the spoils of victory even before due process (if that's what you want to call it) was complete.

I agree with Steve - good knowledge Mark. Also - if Pereiro was the "rightful winner," then we just witnessed the most pathetic defense of that title in recent TDF history in this past tour. Maybe this year he was riding clean? I Didn't really do the math on the see-saw performance he had that year, so that's fascinating, thanks for citing those times.

EVERYONE, Especially Oscar, knows that the Peloton let Pereiro get away for MUCH too much time and Pereiro was the beneficiary of bad judgement. Truth is he is the "miss america runner up" champion because he got lucky.

He should shut up with the complaining and move on from here. He's never going to truly defend it again. He's not even the team leader on Caisse D'Epargne