Landis' defense

[creekster]

Have any of you perused Landis' website where he presents his defense position? I am curious what your reaction is to his claims and evidence.

http://www.floydlandis.com/blog/

go to this web site and follow the links, or go directly to

http://www.box.net

then clic on the Log In tab, using "PublicAccess" as both the log in name and the password.

What do you think? Are you convinced that he is innocent? Does he raise enough doubt to convince you he should not be stripped of his title? Or do you think htat it is another example of a cheater lying to us and perhaps to himslef as well?

[il Padrino Ute]

Interesting.

I really have no idea what to think. I'd like to think that Landis won the Tour without cheating, but in today's world, with all the cheating going on everywhere, it's tough to believe that it couldn't have happened. The argument presented looks to be pretty convincing, but we're getting the point of view of the results of the test by those trying to clear Landis. They aren't going to point out anything that would be detrimental to what they're trying to do.

I'm curious to know that because Americans have dominated this event for 8 consecutive years now, if the French would cheat in testing urine samples to put an end to American dominance. It really isn't any secret that Americans and French aren't too fond of each other, but one would hope that sportsmanship would rise above it.

[bluegoose]

I reviewed the statement when it first came out last week and am still not convinced of his innocence. He does bring up several good points which would be difficult to dispute, such as the negative tests the days before and after the positive test. But much of the argument was about procedural errors by WADA and the UCI. This does very little for me. I could care less if protocol was followed or not. That alone does nothing to prove innocence or guilt. Either he doped or he didn't. I would prefer that they focued on the science and the facts rather than whether or not some lab tech followed established procedures and protocols.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

I reviewed the statement when it first came out last week and am still not convinced of his innocence. He does bring up several good points which would be difficult to dispute, such as the negative tests the days before and after the positive test. But much of the argument was about procedural errors by WADA and the UCI. This does very little for me. I could care less if protocol was followed or not. That alone does nothing to prove innocence or guilt. Either he doped or he didn't. I would prefer that they focued on the science and the facts rather than whether or not some lab tech followed established procedures and protocols.

You better not let Hoyacoug hear you say you could care less about protocols, given that it is a fundamental right of nature to have due process.

On balance, I agree with you. It is a very curious situation, and it looks odd, but nothing he said made me sit up and say "wow, Floyd got hosed" or somesuch. In fact, the lack of response to this thread, i think, tells the whole story. No one is outraged or excited or even mildly worked up. It is just a big non-event.