Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Malibu, Day 4 - preview

Tomorrow is Day Four in the Floyd Landis /USADA hearing at Pepperdine University.

One of USADA's witnesses tomorrow will be Greg Lemond, three-time TdF winner. Many ask what relevant information Lemond could possibly contribute. Cynics say that USADA had asked LNDD to analyze Lemond's sample from his Tour win in 1990; those samples came back positive for an unnamed, prohibited substance, and then USADA had approached Lemond to "rat" Landis in return for keeping silent about the doping offense. Yes, I made that up. Or is it that Lemond is bitter because of the disappointment when learning about Floyd's positive sample, and will now turn on Landis ?

July 24, 2006:

American cycling legend Greg Lemond hailed compatriot Floyd Landis's victory in the Tour de France, describing this year's edition of the race as "the best of all time."

Then after the news broke, on July 27, 2006, in an interview to L'Equipe:
"This news destroys me. I am sure that Floyd Landis and his family are deeply saddened by all that. Floyd is not a bad guy. He is victim of a sport that is corrupted. It seemed that this Tour was one of the cleanest. But it looks like it wasn't 100 percent. There will always be someone who will not comply with the rules. I wanted to believe that Floyd wasn't one of these."

Of course, it could all be very simple. By 5pm tomorrow, we'll know.

Overall, I haven't seen considerable scoring yet for the Landis side to overcome / refute the positivity of the samples. Yes, errors were made and rules were violated, but is that enough ? TBV also says that "strategically, Landis must assume the B's will remain; nevertheless, this seems not to concern them. They still seem confident in the hall.". Isn't that called "gallows humor" ? One of the approaches to overcome the positive samples, is to "demonstrate how the pieces [ISL violations, errors during IRMS processing] fit together to show systemic problems that invalidates all the IRMS results.". This is the tough part I'd say; what does the defense still have up their sleeves ?

No comments: