What if Floyd wins his case?

[BdaGhisallo]

So what if Floyd case winds it way through the remainder of its legal process with USADA and he comes out a winner? How many of the 'Floyd Doped' folks will recant and grant him his innocence? If the arbitration sides with Floyd and concludes that the testing process was too filled with holes and lax administration that it cannot be concluded with certainty that it was a true infraction, will that change any minds? Granted, if this does happen, the UCI and WADA will waste no time in appealing to the CAS, but in the meantime, how will attitudes shift?

Will Floyd always be held up as a doper regardless of the outcome of his case?

What are your thoughts?

[JohnS]

Too many "What ifs?" to answer.

[A.L.Breguet]

He won't.

[Avispa]

So what if Floyd case winds it way through the remainder of its legal process with USADA and he comes out a winner?...

...Will Floyd always be held up as a doper regardless of the outcome of his case?

If he wins the USADA, then it goes to CAS. I doubt if CAS will drop it too.

But winning or not the doping case, I can guarantee you something: Floyd ain't going to be the man he was before the TDF. He is going to end up just like Tyler... a middle of the pack rider.

I doubt it if he comes back to racing that he would ever win a Tour again. We are not talking LeMond class here... If you know what I mean. So, no Tour win after a doping infraction will automatically imply (to most people) that he doped to win that Tour.

I am frankly not certain about what kind of a "winner" he would really be then.

[csm]

who's to say he comes back? I get the feeling that he wouldn't anyway.

[victoryfactory]

When is the USADA decision due?

VF

[BdaGhisallo]

IIRC the parties had three weeks to submit written summaries of their cases then the arbitrators had three weeks to deliberate and issue their decision. That takes it to shortly after the Tour starts....

[Erik.Lazdins]

Point is Floyd was the strongest last year and Pereiro won't do a test.

How much was dope (if there was) how much was Floyd?

I loved that ride Floyd gave after everyone said he was gone and Floyd gets nada from it. That does not seem proper.

Riis took down Miguel Indurain and kept his money but has the jersey boxed up for Prudhomme if he comes looking for it... 11 years later.

Riis has a career.

Floyd?

Tyler?

[Lifelover]

How many of the 'Floyd Doped' folks will recant and grant him his innocence?

Almost none!

If the arbitration sides with Floyd and concludes that the testing process was too filled with holes and lax administration that it cannot be concluded with certainty that it was a true infraction, will that change any minds?

you will hear allot of folks saying that not being convicted is not the same as being innocent

Granted, if this does happen, the UCI and WADA will waste no time in appealing to the CAS, but in the meantime, how will attitudes shift?

They won't

Will Floyd always be held up as a doper regardless of the outcome of his case?

In general, Yes


What are your thoughts?

I have the luxury of not really caring. If pros knowingly choose to dope and it adds to the entertainment, than have at it.

How many of us are concerned because some great artist gets stoned or drops acid for inspiration. Maybe we should start testing them.

[saab2000]

Almost none!



you will hear allot of folks saying that not being convicted is not the same as being innocent



They won't



In general, Yes



I have the luxury of not really caring. If pros knowingly choose to dope and it adds to the entertainment, than have at it.

How many of us are concerned because some great artist gets stoned or drops acid for inspiration. Maybe we should start testing them.

I choose not to dope. 'Cept for beer and wine. But I do chose to ride behind Ms. "G" down there in VA Beach!!! Do you know who I am talking about?

[Lifelover]

I choose not to dope. 'Cept for beer and wine. But I do chose to ride behind Ms. "G" down there in VA Beach!!! Do you know who I am talking about?

Not sure which one is Ms. G Are you talking about Glenda? :banana:

I rode behind a new girl today that was over the top. A little young (maybe 20's) but amazing.

By the way

Luke and the other kid (I can't think of his name Glenda and Jeff's son) are still going strong. They took first and 2nd in some local races and Luke took second for his age group in a time trial up a super tough climb at Wintergreen.

[saab2000]

Yup, she's the one.

BTW, those two kids are hellastrong, especially the bigger one, Lucas. I don't remember the name of Glenda's son, but he is actually a better rider IMHO. Built more like a cyclist, very thin.

Both good riders and nice guys.

Yup, I like Glenda. But off limits..... Her husband is a lucky guy! And a good rider too!

[Avispa]

I loved that ride Floyd gave after everyone said he was gone and Floyd gets nada from it. That does not seem proper...

If good old Floyd would have won the Tour in the same fashion as Di Luca won this year's Giro.... Maybe I'd have given him some respect... But blowing up majorly like he did and then blasting off the the following day. That does not seem proper. :no:

Now on that one, I am with Lifelover... "If pros knowingly choose to dope and it adds to the entertainment, than have at it."

The only thing is that is they get busted, they should also face the music! :beer: Go Floyd! :beer:

[soulspinner]

Point is Floyd was the strongest last year and Pereiro won't do a test.

How much was dope (if there was) how much was Floyd?

I loved that ride Floyd gave after everyone said he was gone and Floyd gets nada from it. That does not seem proper.

Riis took down Miguel Indurain and kept his money but has the jersey boxed up for Prudhomme if he comes looking for it... 11 years later.

Riis has a career.

Floyd?

Tyler?

+1

[djg]

It's hard to know what will happen, but I suspect that the system will not clear Landis, even though the defense seems to have very solid complaints about the integrity of the procedures. I'm not convinced about this, and I'd like to be wrong, but that's my suspicion.

Cleared or not, I don't think he'll ever escape the stain on his reputation. There's been too much mud flung his way, and the fact is that terrible testing and follow-up procedures, and terrible adherence to the procedures, do not really amount to proof of innocence or a cold and smokeless gun. On top of that, Landis seems devoid of PR gifts--it's all well and good when you're an underdog, come-from-behind, happy-go-lucky winner--your persona gets to be a string of sports cliches attached to a picture. Now, not so much. It's just a guy in trouble squirming under the spotlight and we've all seen better squirmers.

I'd like to seem him racing again, but I'm not sure when or at what level that might happen.

[michael white]

It's hard to know what will happen, but I suspect that the system will not clear Landis, even though the defense seems to have very solid complaints about the integrity of the procedures. I'm not convinced about this, and I'd like to be wrong, but that's my suspicion.

Cleared or not, I don't think he'll ever escape the stain on his reputation. There's been too much mud flung his way, and the fact is that terrible testing and follow-up procedures, and terrible adherence to the procedures, do not really amount to proof of innocence or a cold and smokeless gun. On top of that, Landis seems devoid of PR gifts--it's all well and good when you're an underdog, come-from-behind, happy-go-lucky winner--your persona gets to be a string of sports cliches attached to a picture. Now, not so much. It's just a guy in trouble squirming under the spotlight and we've all seen better squirmers.

I'd like to seem him racing again, but I'm not sure when or at what level that might happen.


Landis does not need to establish "proof of innocence." that is what burns me up most about these proceedings. NO ONE in any proper legal sense needs to prove innocence. Right now, Landis is innocent, until proven guilty, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who speaks otherwise is slandering him. And is an *******, a dumbass, and just plain wrong. That includes Pound. The prosecution needs to establish absolute proof of guilt, then you can trash him all you want.

[saab2000]

Landis does not need to establish "proof of innocence." that is what burns me up most about these proceedings. NO ONE in any proper legal sense needs to prove innocence. Right now, Landis is innocent, until proven guilty, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who speaks otherwise is slandering him. And is an *******, a dumbass, and just plain wrong. That includes Pound. The prosecution needs to establish absolute proof of guilt, then you can trash him all you want.


Actually, he has been proven guilty. Two positive tests prove it. Right now is not a trial to establish guilt, but an appeals process to try to establish innocence. Or at least some doubt about his guilt.

Besides, the world of cycling is not like the concept of innocent 'til proven guilty. Except it sort of is. Riders are assumed innocent until they give evidence in the form of a positive test of admission of guilt that they are guilty of not being innocent.

FL has already been proven guilty. Just the way it is.

Of course, the 'conviction' would not stand in a US court, but that's the way the ball bounces.

[djg]

Landis does not need to establish "proof of innocence." that is what burns me up most about these proceedings. NO ONE in any proper legal sense needs to prove innocence. Right now, Landis is innocent, until proven guilty, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who speaks otherwise is slandering him. And is an *******, a dumbass, and just plain wrong. That includes Pound. The prosecution needs to establish absolute proof of guilt, then you can trash him all you want.

I'm not sure what this means. I'm not actually trying to trash Landis and I don't recall ever saying that I'm convinced that he doped or that he ought to be stripped of his tour title. FWIW, I wish the guy well.

I understand that lots of things about the current proceedings stink, and that one might get upset about it (or not, depending on one's beliefs and values), but "innocent, until proven guilty" is really a slogan version of the general presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings in the United States (and certain other places, but not everywhere). It does not necessarily tell us much about the standards of proof to which Landis is subject in the current debacle, supposing there really are standards; and it doesn't tell us much about the workings of the "court" of public opinion, here or in Europe.

[BdaGhisallo]

Actually, he has been proven guilty. Two positive tests prove it. Right now is not a trial to establish guilt, but an appeals process to try to establish innocence. Or at least some doubt about his guilt.

Legally speaking, and I mean in WADA terms, those two tests act as evidence that goes forward to an evidentiary hearing which, after hearing all evidence and submissions, proves his guilt or not. The appeals process would begin after the verdict of his arbitration is pronounced.

So at this point, he is still innocent.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . or innocence in the doping hearing, his actions--or lack of them--in the circus sideshow with his manager and the Lemond phone call have told me all I need to know about Floyd's integrity and personality. Or should I say his lack of same. Testimony established that Floyd knew of the call the night before, but didn't say word one in court the next day until Lemond brought it up. His willingness to let something like that slide speaks volumes about his character. He isn't my hero in any sense of the word any more.

That's a shame, too, because he really does have some excellent points about the abhorrent state of the dope testing programs and how unfair they are to anyone who's been accused.

BBD