You are merely an observer Uli, without any direct access to the facts or proceedings. As an attorney that you claim to be, one would think you'd be an advocate for a modicum of judgemental restraint under the circumstances. Of course that won't happen by those who frequent these forums under the cover of anonymity who postulate on theory and speculation as if they were facts.

I live in Lancaster, PA and have ridden past Floyd Landis's parents house many times. He was "also" innocent.

---

---

ErgDB Erg & PowerAgent workout generator | My blog - special thanks to Kiwami

I know more about this case than you do apparently. Read my previous posting again. I understand it's tough for you to accept what's happening but, again, he e.g. didn't cheat on his wife. Start now with moving on.

I am not anonymous. Takes ten seconds to find out my name if you're slow with google.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

Hi Mapletop. I viewed this thread develop. Like you said, none of us have the details. We also want a clean sport.

In all of this, what I found interesting was on the front page interview, Michael is saying something along the lines of "his triathlon results will stand". My assumption is that he raced triathlon clean. My understanding is that he's being currently punished for a previous infraction while mountain biking. He did not come out and say, "my tri and mountain bike results will stand". He singled out his tri results as being clean.

I'm a fan of people learning from their mistakes, admitting to them and moving on and getting a second chance. David Millar is a nice example of this. It's peculiar that Michael points to his clean tri results, but steers clear about talking about the mountain bike results.

As a reader of the interview, I almost read an "implied admission". If so, from a PR perspective, he'd be better off just admitting it, sitting out his 2 years, and then becoming an aggressive proponent of racing clean. He's already very vocal about athletes racing clean and not drafting, so this would not be that difficult.

While 2 years seems like a lot right now, he could use the 2 years to actively help turn things towards a cleaner sport by becoming an advocate for it. If he was truly wrongly being framed, he should have gone with "All of my results...." rather than "My triathlon results....". As a reader, I see a big difference between those 2 lines.

Whether he doped or not, I don't care now. Many people make mistakes in life. It's what he does with this opportunity moving forward, and in life, as you probably know, every set back is an opportunity to improve and become a better person. I fully appreciate that being a pro bicyclist in Austia in the early/mid 2000's is a completely different competitive world from pro triathlon. I'm not going to judge him now for what he may have felt pressure to do or not do then.

Best of luck to Michael moving forward. I think he can win over lots of fans and a future living in this sport with the right public communication and actions now. It will serve him well into the future.

I shall rest my case with this. No one on this forum has sufficient knowledge of the facts to the extent of those closest to Micheal Weiss and therefore they are merely speculating and theorizing for their self-pleasure. It has been enlightening to observe and perfectly illustrates the "rush to judgement" mentality by the masses of uninformed.

Look, you are in a bit of a Lions-Den here and, you get what you get when you venture into these forums - and this one is moderately moderated. I am not sure what you were expecting.

I am not sure of all the details myself, so I'll not comment directly on the situation. However, you'll have a hard time here convincing people in the court-of-public-opinion one way or another.

As an aside, you've not helped yourself, by being new here, and breaking a number of forum and online commentary rules.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Dev's post is about the most intelligent thing that has been said on this thread in quite awhile.

If he doped be should be punished. But he's also been racing triathlon for quite some time since these allegations and with his level of success he has quite likely been subject to many drug test during that time and based on the information we have has passed all of those. Based on that he deserves the benefit of the doubt regarding his triathlon results. If he did dope during his mtn biking days, came clean now, served his supension and then returned to racing I would have a ton of respect for him. Anybody who is rational should as well. People make mistakes all the time and its how they respond to them that determines the type of person they are. People appreciate honesty and for the most part a quick to forgive. Look at difference between how Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens are viewed in baseball.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

Just as an FYI, Ironman was the first to really institute an organized drug testing program, and they did so at the end of 2009. After I won IMAZ in 2009 was the first time I was ever drug tested. Since then, any athlete who races WTC races is subject to both out-of-competition and in-competition testing, though the number of tests obviously depends on the athlete, especially with regards to out-of-competition testing. And it was not until end of 2010 / early 2011 that Ironman tested blood; 2009 through mid-2010, WTC only had provisions for urine testing.

XTerra does not - as far as I know - conduct any drug tests. I can't think of any USAT race (besides the draft legal series for elites) that does drug testing.

This is **NOT** meant to imply anything about the case at hand. It's just meant to address your claim that, "he has quite likely been subject to many drug tests [as a triathlete]." In *MY EXPERIENCE* that is not the case. Granted, each national governing body can choose to test athletes in addition to what Ironman has mandated - for instance, GBTri tests Chrissie Wellington in addition to WTC testing her (when you are tested, you are given a letter indicating who requested the test if it is out of competition). So Tri Austria may have tested Weiss a great deal.

But the history of drug testing in triathlon is pretty sparse, and even with the recent institution of a comprehensive program, it's really only Ironman that is testing, either in or out of competition.

Again, this is not meant to cast any opinion on the subject of Michael Weiss and what he may or may not have done. But, unfortunately, triathlon and drug testing have a very short - and generally yet unproven - history.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I had the pleasure, with about ~20 other "randomly selected" athletes, of getting tested at AG Nats this summer (urine only).

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

I'm a fan of giving a second chance in life. Not sure why they have to come back competing. Someone said it before: we don't know how much of a long term effect these drugs have.

One thing for sure: I would never take Millar as an example. That guy still does what he can get away with.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

Jordan, thanks for information. I think there is a real lack of information about the drug testing process out there and as such a lot of assumptions. As far as Ironman and the WTC is the common practice to pull the athletes out once they finish the race and drug test? I know a couple of pros that have had this happen to them after crossing the finish line at 70.3 events. Without looking up his race schedule for the past few years I'd have to guess he was tested a few times post race. At the same time though if this is the only time that athletes are being tested it would seem quite easy to avoid a positive result since you basically know exactly when you were going to be tested.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

If he doped be should be punished.

As Jordan said it's only very recently in the sport of triathlon (Outside of the ITU circuit) that drug testing has started to be taken seriously. Indeed, it's been pretty sparse and hap-hazard in triathlon up until a year or so ago. Depending on where an athlete resided and what events they focused on there was a very good chance that they could race all year, get great results, win money, have good sponsorship support, and so on, and never get tested! Not making any accusations, here or commenting on this case in particular. It's just that when you leave a barn door open that wide for that long, guess what - something is going to walk through it!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

The problem with speedracer's comment isn't about "Hard Evidence". "Hard Evidence" is not a legal term. There is 1) direct evidence, and 2) circumstantial evidence.

Either could be strong or weak, depending on the evidence. For instance, if the ONLY ISSUE in a case was ID, and the circumstantial evidence consisted of a DNA match at 11 loci, then that's pretty damn strong evidence, but it happens to be circumstantial.

I know basically only what I have read as a cycling enthusiast about this case. It appears, at least, that there is 1) DIRECT EVIDENCE (see above) in the form of eyewitness evidence from Kohl. I don't know Kohl, and have never cross-examined him. He might be a great eyewitness, or a poor one with credibility problems.

It also appears that there is CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, in the form of blood values (as I understand some posts - I have never read any primary sources on this). I have no idea whether it is strong or weak.

This debate would be more interesting of more facts were thrown out there, and less ignorance of the law.

 
>There's this misconception that circumstancial evidence is a somehow lesser or weaker form of evidence.[/quote]
A valid correction, and I also incorrectly assumed that a positive doping test was direct evidence, when it's also circumstantial.

But the power of circumstantial evidence exerts itself when there are multiple circumstances which dovetail to present a strong narrative.

A positive doping test is a single piece of circumstantial evidence that is accepted as a standalone evidence strong enough for "conviction." But in that case, this is *explicitly* stated, and the process is (mostly) clear.

But eyewitness testimony presence in a plasma lab, as a standalone piece of evidence is a very different. There is (as far as I know) no explicit statement by WADA that athletes not be in plasma labs. Now if this bit of circumstantial evidence was supported by other bits such as credit card payment to the lab two weeks before IMSG, suspiciously elevated hematocrit in several tests, and independent corroboration of Kohl's story by other eyewitnesses then you're into the wheelhouse of circumstantial evidence - they all dovetail nicely into a story of doping.

But if what's in the article on the main ST page is all there, is, it has a kangaroo court feel to it. Certainly there is *stronger* circumstantial evidence against Lance, since significant payments to a known doping Dr. is at least on part with presence in an plasma lab.

This is different then my *opinion* of Weiss' doping, but opinion is no way to run an anti-doping program.

What Rappstar says is unfortunately true. Up until the end of 2009, a small percentage of IM races had in-competition testing and there was no systematic out-of-competition testing (even if some athletes competing were being tested by their NGB).

There were many instances of athletes showing up to races and either having a great result when there was no doping control or a DNF in case there was control. It was quite easy to predict the DNF's. It was a sad state of affairs and I saw many friends and athletes I coached getting beat by these cheaters.

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

Do they actually tell the athletes pre race whether or not there will be doping control at the event? That seems self defeating at best.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

 
Just to clarify for those that aren't aware - ITU testing has been common place for a long time before WTC / Ironman / 2009.

As an ITU racer that finishes in the top ten, even 5 years ago, it was not un-common to be tested 4 - 6 times out of competition, and then EVERY time finishing on the podium.

At IM events since the inception of this drugs testing program - it's still VERY hit and miss (at best).

SB.

I wouldn't find it peculiar that he points to his clean triathlon results, but doesn't talk about the mtb results, in a triathlon forum interview.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Yes and no. If you announce in advance, at least they DNS or DNF. Much better for everyone than a positive result!

However, the better (richer) the athlete, the more sophisticated his/her doping. Most just laugh at post race controls.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

Dev's post is about the most intelligent thing that has been said on this thread in quite awhile.

_________

While I agree as I posted something pretty similar earlier I will say the "I got caught so now I will tell my story and come back to help clean up sport..." is getting old. I think David Millar was granted amunity of sorts because he was the first to do it. But let's continue that tale:

- Tyler Hamilton. Hung out to dry, divorced, depressed, broke and can't even coach really without ST slamming those he coached by extension (ie: Matt Reid)
- Floyd Landis. hung out to dry, divorced, broke but curiously blissful in his new found world
- Di Luca. Admired, revered, rehired, but curiously silent
- Ricco. despised but yet rehired...then fired again
- Nina Kraft. Despised at first but welcomed back, quietly racing. Silent.
- Beke. EPO positive; proved it as an anomoly and welcomed back. We accept the anomoly as fact, given that is how the court decided so yes, should be welcomed back. Now retired.
- Rebekah Keat. Totally ripped off IMO but took her 2 years with a lump and came back to race. Rightfully welcomed back IMO and kicking ass

So, to me what I find fascinating with this "come back and help clean it up" is we as fans pick who we say ok to and who we don't. I think that has to do with the sincerity esposed by the person but to me, the bravest of the bunch is Floyd yet he is thrown to the wolves. I suspect because his attack is usually centered on LA and his sincerity seems more vindictive than supportive of sport. In conclusion, while I would love every doper to come clean and explain the who, the how, the when and how to catch it in future (I don't give a shit about the why, that is obvious) I'm not sure we would welcome it anyway given our history as a fan base.

Anyway, this is an internet forum and no one is going to convince anyone else that Mapletop is right or wrong, or that Weiss did or didn't do it. Frankly, we don't have the facts all in hand as observers. But, this is an internet forum which means an open forum to express opinion. the thing with opinions is, they are not right nor wrong, they are simply one persons perception expressed.

i do hope whatever are the facts for Weiss and his family, they figure it out and get a resolution that is fair and consistent to the facts.

---

@rhyspencer

What I want to know is this: why would an endurance athlete go to Humanplasma? It's on par with Lance associated with Michele Ferrari.
Yes, it's circumstantial evidence, but in this case, it's nearly just as good as seeing someone getting an EPO shot...

But, unfortunately, triathlon and drug testing have a very short - and generally yet unproven - history. //

Not exactly true, but if you start your history at the turn of the century then perhaps. The triathlon federation back in the late 80;s did quite a bit of drug testing, as well as many of the big international races. There was out of competition testing too. I retired in 93 as a pro, so i do not know when it all fell apart, but apparently it did. I was pretty sure that Ironman's testing for many years was not really testing, but collecting. I think that is still the case with many races, they collect samples, but whether they get tested or not remains suspect. Although just the collecting phase is somewhat a deterrent, after everyone knows about it, it becomes useless. I think ironman had almost a decade of clean races by their reckoning, but of course once they tested the few samples one year, it was astonishing how many positives there were.

Back to this case. First of all, Kohl is an eyewitness to what he saw, it is not 2nd hand. You may not believe him, that will be up to a court to decide if he is credible, but if he was in the room at the time of the doping, that is pretty bad. Now as we have seen with Lance, that kind of evidence alone does not get you done, at least it has not as of yet in his case. And with the justice system, the more money you have to defend, the more the scales swing to your side, just how it is. I doubt that Michael has much to help him in that regard. The high % of red blood cells is another piece to the puzzle too, but what was it exactly. It has been found that a lot of elite athletes have over 50% naturally, and they can now continue showing a long history of those levels. It is something he would also have to prove. I myself would have had to do this as in my younger days, as i was over 50%, as our own Paul Thomas is too. But I have blood tests before there was even an EPO showing my high values, and to this day every test shows that pattern.

In my opinion, if he did dope years ago and got away with it, most likely he continued to do it. Why, because it works. Dev pointed out that folks should get a 2nd chance, I believe this too, but only if you cop to the cheating already done. If one continues to lie about that, then why would we believe him now? Millar is a great example of this, and he even went into the super hard to beat testing system afterwards to help prove his case, voluntarily. I see nothing like this here, so either he is going to fight to the bitter end like Floyd did, and then at the last minute pretend to do the right thing when no choice is left, or he thinks he can beat this rap and will hold his line. I agree that his statements about winning tris clean is odd, but not if all the evidence is pointing in the direction it seems to. Right now he has a choice to do the right thing if guilty, that i would respect somewhat. If he does it forced at the end of a gun later on, then he is dead in the water for the rest of his career. He can join Floyd selling hot dogs at the Padre games, and then drinking yourself into a stupor to forget what might have been..

Maybe because he wrote a book denying the doping allegations, then comes clean after he collects his profits from that book.

Mapletop you should come to the Lavender Room, we'll get this squared away, the main forum is where all the derelicts and haters reside.

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

I personally think it's very sad that somebody has to resort to cheating in order to compete at a high level. A lot of great mountain bikers are us "bigger guys" Tall with a lot of power output. To get more power, train more it's simple, but there's always the easy way out. I think it really comes down to the easy way out, rather than be patient for the results of those workouts to come there's a "magic trick" in order to get out of it. While genetics are predisposed there is a lot an athlete can do to improve on those genetics cleanly. I've seen individuals with a vo2 max of 50, kill me in races, because they simply are willing to suffer and have done so for a long while, until they finally had that breakthrough. I haven't followed Michi's career but it might come down to timing, for example an athlete really has 10 years of hard efforts to reach an olympic level. Genetics and other factors can really influence the amount of time needed, and some athletes rise very quickly depending on those factors. I will always remember my teammates who showed up freshmen year of cross country and absolutely dominated me the entire season, having never run prior to the first practice. I think during my life I've learned the absolute importance of hard work, and consistency. Some athletes if they were on track for the olympics/paychecks/survival at the high ranks might not have the time to justify this hard work, it's a cowards way out. I personally get where they're coming from because it sucks losing, but it doesn't excuse it in any way. This is where I lose respect for athletes who do resort to cheating, it's not fair to those who have put in the time/effort, and the suffering that is really required to race at the high levels.

A very interesting read is this thread. There's much that can be said on either side of the questions raised here. These last few concering Kohl as an eyewitness are troubling though. A post earlier on in this thread, I think by Weiss' father-in-law, stated Kohl failed to show up at some hearings to testify against Weiss. If that was indeed the case, I for one, would question the credibility of his accusations.