Positively False - Floyd Landis Books

zasa
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:47 pm

Positively False - Floyd Landis Books

Postby zasa » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:12 pm

Has anyone here read his new book?
Last edited by zasa on Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
europa
Posts: 7334
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:51 am
Location: southern end of Adelaide - home of hills, fixies and drop bears

Postby europa » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:25 pm

No link of course - still within the 'trial period'. You aren't perchance referring to the Flandis effort to prove himself a pure as the driven snow are you? Sorry, I'm a bit more choosy about the fiction I read. If the fool had admitted his guilt when caught, he'd be out of suspension now, either that or well into his second and last year.

Richard
I had a good bike ... so I fixed it

User avatar
sogood
Posts: 17168
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Positively False - Floyd Landis Books

Postby sogood » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:33 pm

zasa wrote:Has anyone here read his new book?
No, not interested in helping him to fund his lawyers and PR show. 8)
Bianchi, Ridley, Tern, Montague and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.

zasa
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:47 pm

Postby zasa » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:33 pm

You don't believe people have a right to defend themselves?

User avatar
sogood
Posts: 17168
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby sogood » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:34 pm

zasa wrote:You don't believe people have a right to defend themselves?
I do. But I elect not to contribute to his fighting fund in this case.
Bianchi, Ridley, Tern, Montague and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.

User avatar
Kalgrm
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 9653
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Success, WA
Contact:

Postby Kalgrm » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:39 pm

Certainly people have a right to defend themselves. That's what the court system is for. Writing a book is simply a way of getting the public to believe your version of the truth.

Don't believe everything you read ....

Cheers,
Graeme

(PS - around here, substitute the word "anything" for "everything". ;))
Think outside the double triangle.
---------------------
Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it ....

User avatar
europa
Posts: 7334
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:51 am
Location: southern end of Adelaide - home of hills, fixies and drop bears

Postby europa » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:40 pm

zasa wrote:You don't believe people have a right to defend themselves?
There's a difference between 'defend' and 'blatant cover up with lies and false accusations'.

If Flandis wants respect, he can come clean and apologise. It's worked for everyone else who's tried it. In the meantime, cycling is the loser, not poor Flandis.

Richard
I had a good bike ... so I fixed it

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22160
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:48 pm

Didn't he test positive to excess chocolate milk consumption?
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
sogood
Posts: 17168
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby sogood » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:48 pm

Bear in mind, Landis isn't exactly a poor guy needing to use legal aid. Selling publicity is just a standard way to make money. And I doubt that he wrote everything himself. More like being heavily assisted by the PR machine.
Bianchi, Ridley, Tern, Montague and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.

User avatar
toolonglegs
Posts: 15463
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Postby toolonglegs » Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:44 pm

Gulity until proven innocent...
Last edited by toolonglegs on Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bnej
Posts: 2880
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:43 pm
Location: Katoomba, NSW

Postby Bnej » Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:49 pm

I read the articles about the tests he failed at the time, and it's pretty damning evidence.

I'm not interested in reading a book of excuses.

User avatar
tallywhacker
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:21 pm
Location: Perth

Postby tallywhacker » Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:24 pm

Didn't Ian Thorpe test positive for "abnormal levels" of 2 banned substances (testosterone and epitestosterone) and was just exonerated because they were "naturally occurring".
What I find interesting is people's different reactions to both and that in both cases they were "outed" by L'Equipe

just my 2 bobs worth

User avatar
europa
Posts: 7334
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:51 am
Location: southern end of Adelaide - home of hills, fixies and drop bears

Postby europa » Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:34 pm

tallywhacker wrote:Didn't Ian Thorpe test positive for "abnormal levels" of 2 banned substances (testosterone and epitestosterone) and was just exonerated because they were "naturally occurring".
What I find interesting is people's different reactions to both and that in both cases they were "outed" by L'Equipe

just my 2 bobs worth
The results from Flandis' tests were the result of artificial testosterone, not natural.

There are sportsmen (and women) who get caught by tests and later exonerated - thing is, they don't behave like this clown has done. Then there are those that just accept they got caught and put their hand up.

Richard
I had a good bike ... so I fixed it

User avatar
Bnej
Posts: 2880
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:43 pm
Location: Katoomba, NSW

Postby Bnej » Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:35 pm

They take a base level, as many top athletes have abnormally high testosterone levels anyway. Subsequent testing compares against whatever your natural base level is, and it's the variation that brings suspicion.

Not only did Landis have something in the region of 10 times his base level (heavy drinking can explain something like a 2x higher reading in men and a smaller effect in women), they know from analysis that it was synthetic.

If they had similar evidence against Thorpe he would have been banned too.

Not to mention that what he did was basically impossible. I was watching the coverage a bit at the time and found it really crazy that he could go and make a solo breakaway like that. You don't see that kind of variation at the top levels of most sports.

User avatar
sogood
Posts: 17168
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby sogood » Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:05 pm

europa wrote:There are sportsmen (and women) who get caught by tests and later exonerated - thing is, they don't behave like this clown has done. Then there are those that just accept they got caught and put their hand up.
Yes, this aspect makes him most unlikable. At the same time, he is taking the whole sport of cycling down with him using every trick in the PR spin trade. Pretty pathetic.
Bianchi, Ridley, Tern, Montague and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.

User avatar
tallywhacker
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:21 pm
Location: Perth

Postby tallywhacker » Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:05 pm

europa wrote:
tallywhacker wrote:Didn't Ian Thorpe test positive for "abnormal levels" of 2 banned substances (testosterone and epitestosterone) and was just exonerated because they were "naturally occurring".
What I find interesting is people's different reactions to both and that in both cases they were "outed" by L'Equipe

just my 2 bobs worth
The results from Flandis' tests were the result of artificial testosterone, not natural.

There are sportsmen (and women) who get caught by tests and later exonerated - thing is, they don't behave like this clown has done. Then there are those that just accept they got caught and put their hand up.

Richard
all the reports I read talked about "2 banned substances". How can you ban a substance that occurrs naturally in your body ?

User avatar
sogood
Posts: 17168
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Postby sogood » Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:27 pm

tallywhacker wrote:all the reports I read talked about "2 banned substances". How can you ban a substance that occurrs naturally in your body ?
1) If it's synthetic.
2) If it's in unnatural concentration.
3) If it's unphysiological.
Bianchi, Ridley, Tern, Montague and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users