Interesting stuff from Landis…
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/index.php?showtopic=1458
Reminds me of that old commercial -sme old lady yelling at a burger joint, “WHERE’S THE BEEF?”
.
this is pretty cool! thanks for turning us on to this. surprised it didn’t get more comments.
i’m not quite sure what you are talking about FF. is that you on this other forum?
REALLY interesting. He mentions that he had to wait for the lawyers to give him the OK before he gets on a forum to defend himself…and offer up his legal documents to the public??? I know he wants a public arbitration, but this forum chatting about his case is WEIRD, CREEPY, and desperate. (sorry)
Floyd has been posting for over a month now. It’s old news if you’ve been following the case and is part of his “Wikipedia Defense”. If anyone is really interested in how this public defense is proceeding, follow along at http://trustbut.blogspot.com/. Some really interesting stuff, no matter what you believe. A summary of the analysis going on at the Daily Peloton Forums is available here as well: http://landiscase.wikispaces.com/.
–Marcus George
UCLA Triathlon
Funny…when you pull up the landiscase.wikispaces site there are a bunch of google adds to the right advertising testosterone…
And Floyd’s ‘expert’ to evaluate the LNDD in France is who? a PhD in Biochemistry? a PhD in chemistry? a researcher of some sort?
nah…it’s a retired doctor…who’s never done any research, and has no credential whatsoever to evaluate a lab.
So, floyd cannot find someone who can translate from French to English (geee…it’s really hard to find…isn’t it?) nor a good biochemist…
Hey FM.2.0
*So do you have first hand knowledge of this “retired Doctor” and that he is not qualified? Do you really think that they would send some one that is not qualified? Come on give the guy a brake. *
You have him guilty with out knowing all the evidence, or do you know all the evidence and you’re just not fessing up?
*Before you start criticizing his case come clean with all of us with what “you know” are you an expert? Or just an expert here on ST? *
And if you are an expert I’m sorry but I and I think a lot of people on the forum would like your side of the case.
Dan…
However, I’ve parsed through some pages and I am amazed. This thread there should be an example.
It remains courteous. Floyd stays pretty cool answering questions (although he ignored a couple of interesting posts, but it could be for legal reasons). Very impressive IMO.
Check my post above about courtesy.
I didn’t say anything else than his expert being ‘just’ an MD. He is not a biochemist. He is not a specialist in this field. He is not one the guys deciding to give accrediation to Anti-doping laboratories.
Now, If I were Floyd, I’d make sure I’d choose an expert who really is an expert. Someone other scientists will listen to if they are to be told that the Lab is wrongly accredited.
Someone other scientists will listen to if they are to be told that the Lab is wrongly accredited.
Not being a wise ass here, but isn’t his target audience a court of law, and not scientists in the field? I mean, I agree with you completely regarding your logic, but legal cases often times have very little to do with the facts.
But don’t you think the ‘prosecution’ will come with real experts?
The ‘expert’ used by floyd to evaluate the claims of the LNDD is Arnie Baker, officially, a retired physician, with no credentials to evaluate the LNDD in Chatenay-Malabry.
Now, if there are conflicting dates etc. sure Jacobs can say ‘there is a problem’ but if Baker is used as the expert to say that the methods used are inaccurate, all the prosecution has to do is to come up with a reliable expert in the field…and you can bet they will not ask a retired MD.
there…now you have it first hand too:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/?id=2006/landis_defense
.
But don’t you think the ‘prosecution’ will come with real experts?
I would certainly assume so, particularly if their case is ironclad. If they have problems, then it is not so clear. But again, my point is, the the defense isn’t worried about convincing the scientific community, at least not for now, but convincing the judge and/or jury. When the case enters the court house, at least in the U.S., science has very little to do with the case anymore, and it all boils down to perception.
I assume that Floyds’ case will be heard in France. Will this be a hearing, an appeal before a board or what exactly?
I think the prosecution comes from USADA. So it should be in the US.
I feel that he will be vindicated, and race the Tour in 2007 if his hip heals. And probably be a podium contender with Basso back in the game.
My gut feeling is that the evidence is stronger against Basso than Floyd, but that they both probably have been doping for years.
I’ve got to say that I think less of Discovery for signing Basso.