Questions for LNDD
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
TrustButVerify

Redwood City, CA

#1 Sep 14, 2006
Well, since LNDD turned up, let's some other folks ask him some questions. He seems to have a lot of time, living in his parents basement hoping for a real life someday.

I have a few:

1. Why would the review board be sensitive to the politics? Membership is supposed to be confidential.

2. Why wouldn't the "least controversial" decision be to pick the default sanction and leave the appeals as someone else's problem?

3. What does the RB have to lose by saying "looks like a positive test to us, here's your suspension."

4. Couldn't it pick a -longer- sanction, like an 8 year ban, just for the audacity of being a doping winner of the showcase event?

6. What difference can the chain of custody bitching possibly make, since the B sample opened had the same # as the doping control form that Landis signed and got a copy of.

7. Was Buxeda a POTTED PLANT, or was there some purpose to his presence at the B sample testing beyond collecting his hourly rate?

8. I don't see anything that has really discredited the TE results either, what with all the commotion around the CIR. How is he going to dance out of that?

- TBV http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research and comment.
ricky rider

AOL

#2 Sep 14, 2006
TrustButVerify wrote:
Well, since LNDD turned up, let's some other folks ask him some questions. He seems to have a lot of time, living in his parents basement hoping for a real life someday.
I have a few:
1. Why would the review board be sensitive to the politics? Membership is supposed to be confidential.
Politics could play a part if the evidence for "conviction" is subtantial, but not overwhelming.

2. Why wouldn't the "least controversial" decision be to pick the default sanction and leave the appeals as someone else's problem?
The purpose of the ADRB is to review the infomation and from the athlete and make a judgment, not to rubber stamp a lab report. If it is not going take its job seriously, why bother?

3. What does the RB have to lose by saying "looks like a positive test to us, here's your suspension."
The RB has nothing to lose by saying that if they thoroughly reviewed the lab report as well as Landis' submission, and believes that a violation occurred. Passing the buck indicates a lack of fortitude.

4. Couldn't it pick a -longer- sanction, like an 8 year ban, just for the audacity of being a doping winner of the showcase event?
Good question. I don't know the correct answer to this on.

6. What difference can the chain of custody bitching possibly make, since the B sample opened had the same # as the doping control form that Landis signed and got a copy of.
Chain of custody "bitching" could be valid if the security of the samples could have been compromised.

7. Was Buxeda a POTTED PLANT, or was there some purpose to his presence at the B sample testing beyond collecting his hourly rate?
One would doubt that Buxeda was not diligent indoing his job, but it's possible. He is, after all, a lawyer.

8. I don't see anything that has really discredited the TE results either, what with all the commotion around the CIR. How is he going to dance out of that?
- TBV http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research and comment.
Unless you have the entire report, can understand the science and the statistics, and can test both the report and Landis' rebuttal, you probably don't have enough facts to know whether the TE or CIR results are valid.
By the way, I visited http://trustbut.blogspot.com ...
Nicely done. I like the fact that you have assembled a lot of pertinent information and appear to have remained neutral on the issue.
Will

Bowie, MD

#3 Sep 14, 2006
Hard questions to be answered by a Landis supporter? This could be VERY interesting.
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#4 Sep 14, 2006
I'm assuming the answers given were by Ricky Rider. They point out that there is a lot of confusion about the role and responsibility of the review board. Some think it actually evaluates stuff and has a spine, and others think it is a rubber stamp machine.

I don't believe LNDD has said anything. Maybe he's ducking me. If he comes back, I'll taunt him about the history of dubious control at Phonak, and what that says about Landis' decision to stay there in '05 and '06.

TBV http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research and comment.
Zeek

Milton, WA

#5 Sep 14, 2006
Phonak tried to deal with their problem. Landis signed with Phonak just before the Tyler Hamilton blood doping scandal broke. The following is from Bicycling October 06 interview pg 56 & 58.

The team management and doctors were fired, sending the organization into disarray. "I was given the option to terminate my contract and leave right then," Landis says. "I could have gone anywhere." That includes a return to the then-indisputably strongest team in the peloton, Discovery. "But I thought that if I stay when they have a problem, then maybe they'll give me a chance when it comes out that I have a problem (his hip from earlier context)." The team was not even assured a ProTour license at that time, but to Landis, loyalty meant more than having the best chance for good results in 2005.

From this it is clear Phonak tried to clean up its act and Floyd was joining a team with significantly different support personnel than the one Tyler Hamilton had raced for.
Will

Bowie, MD

#6 Sep 14, 2006
TrustButVerify wrote:
I'm assuming the answers given were by Ricky Rider. They point out that there is a lot of confusion about the role and responsibility of the review board. Some think it actually evaluates stuff and has a spine, and others think it is a rubber stamp machine.
I don't believe LNDD has said anything. Maybe he's ducking me. If he comes back, I'll taunt him about the history of dubious control at Phonak, and what that says about Landis' decision to stay there in '05 and '06....
So, is ricky rider actually LNDD? Does ricky only answer LNDD's questions or does he also answer LNDD's mail? Ricky/LNDD's answers were rich in opinion content but poor in details and support.
TrustButVerify

Santa Rosa, CA

#7 Sep 15, 2006
I don't think so. I haven't seen a post by LNDD in response, and Ricky's post with answers appears sua-sponte, so I took it as his work in the quotation.

Anyway, it looks to me like LNDD is still hiding.

Regarding Phonak, Landis knew it was somewhat trouble before Hamilton got nabbed. It continued to have troubles with the new regime. Yet he stayed, and never appeared to have anything bad to say about it. What up wit dat?

He demonstrated situational ethics with the silence on the hip, and stayed at a team with known doping problems. Its not the best foundation from which to dispute test results.

I still don't know the truth, whether he did, the lab sucks, there's some funny biochemistry involved, or the nazi frogmen got to the samples.

Show me the filing and the lab report.

TBV http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research and comment.
pelotonjim

Hillsborough, NJ

#8 Sep 15, 2006
One simple question for the LNDD. When protocols procedures for any lab are generally followed so well it looks like the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace, why do you guys always look like the Keystone Cops ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Cops )when it comes to the biggest event in the world?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php...
TrustButVerify

Redwood City, CA

#9 Sep 15, 2006
PJ, "LNDD" isn't The LNDD -- he's a legalistic pro-floyd cheering section who is having a pissing contest with the one here known as "Will". We think he's a pre-law dropout with too much time on his hands. For people like us who don't know anything, they appear to be about evenly matched. Their tete-a-tete's are revealing interesting lines of argument, at least to me.

TBV
Will

Fort Wayne, IN

#10 Sep 15, 2006
TrustButVerify wrote:
PJ, "LNDD" isn't The LNDD -- he's a legalistic pro-floyd cheering section who is having a pissing contest with the one here known as "Will". We think he's a pre-law dropout with too much time on his hands. For people like us who don't know anything, they appear to be about evenly matched. Their tete-a-tete's are revealing interesting lines of argument, at least to me.
TBV
"For people like us who don't know anything, they appear to be about evenly matched." -- hehehehe, it just goes to show that appearances CAN be deceiving, especially "for people ... who don't know anything".
LNDD

Verbank, NY

#11 Sep 15, 2006
TrustButVerify wrote:
Well, since LNDD turned up, let's some other folks ask him some questions. He seems to have a lot of time, living in his parents basement hoping for a real life someday.
I have a few:
1. Why would the review board be sensitive to the politics? Membership is supposed to be confidential.
2. Why wouldn't the "least controversial" decision be to pick the default sanction and leave the appeals as someone else's problem?
3. What does the RB have to lose by saying "looks like a positive test to us, here's your suspension."
4. Couldn't it pick a -longer- sanction, like an 8 year ban, just for the audacity of being a doping winner of the showcase event?
6. What difference can the chain of custody bitching possibly make, since the B sample opened had the same # as the doping control form that Landis signed and got a copy of.
7. Was Buxeda a POTTED PLANT, or was there some purpose to his presence at the B sample testing beyond collecting his hourly rate?
8. I don't see anything that has really discredited the TE results either, what with all the commotion around the CIR. How is he going to dance out of that?
- TBV http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news, research and comment.
1. I think anyone in an appointed position, like that of those composed to assemble the RB, is subject to possible influence. It may be publicy confidential, but those at the top, like Madden and Tygart, know who they've appointed to THIS case.

2. If the RB chooses the "Pointus Pilate" approach, they then have caved and not executed thier purpose. I do not think they would outwardly prsent that but inwardly, they may consider that. Either way, it is their process, os going forward, their rules still aply and it is thier adjuducation still.

3. I dont thinkthey "Lose" anything, other than possible credibility if more info were to come from the Landis camp, post-facto but in advance of an appeal, that shows they failed to use the RB to its fullest.

4. The rules on the sacntions are clear. There is no ay they can increase the saction arbitrarily based on the person or event.

6 (shouldn't 5 come next?). Chain of custody problems can mean alot. Since FL.com speaks to it, they may have something. Mismatched numbers, A sample issues?(when there were no observers), who knows? It is a bit vague but if they are publicly stating it, and we al know it only matters if they can show it can affect the adverse finding, it could be a big issue.

7. Not sure on this. Beyond his silly "Dehydration" theory, he is out of the picture in public.

8. A T/E isue only atters if they can make a case out of it with confirmation of doping by IRMS, longitudinal, or some other means (admission/confession)...An elevated T/E must be reported but without such evidence suffient to make a case, they just increase the scrutiny on an athlete. Form the FL.com info, they speak of T/E issues related to inconsistent levels (concentrations/rations?), gross errors like code umber problems/chain of custody issues (big no-no if they can mean the AAF is impacted)...all of this tells me of sloppy work.

If you think you've just nailed the TdF winner, who is also an american who rode for Lance, don't you think they'd have dotted thier i's and crossed their T's? Especially with the B tests, by then they know who they are testing and what they need to do to be consistent with the A....

BTW, how can you say "evenly matched" when poor WIll can't even read/argue the WADA annual report, misinterprets "WHo" is bringing this case vs FL, etc?

I expect more confidence <SMILE>
LNDD

Verbank, NY

#12 Sep 15, 2006
...especially interesting is Pound's AMAZING BACKPEDDLING to a "...wait and wee approach".

Isn't this the same guy with his "Come Clean" pleas?
The same prejudicial and defamatory buffoon?

He states they have not seen "ALL"te evidence, whihc suggest they've seen maybe "SOME"? Which could be the cause of the backpeddlin' going on?

Combined with more toned down waft of pressure on USADA and the outward presentation of a system that is working....Pound has lost his final thread ofcredibility of any kind at this point, if he had any left.
LNDD

Verbank, NY

#13 Sep 15, 2006
1. I think anyone in an appointed position, like that of those composed to assemble the RB, is subject to possible influence. It may be publicy confidential, but those at the top, like Madden and Tygart, know who they've appointed to THIS case.

2. If the RB chooses the "Pointus Pilate" approach, they then have caved and not executed thier purpose. I do not think they would outwardly prsent that but inwardly, they may consider that. Either way, it is their process, os going forward, their rules still aply and it is thier adjuducation still.

3. I dont thinkthey "Lose" anything, other than possible credibility if more info were to come from the Landis camp, post-facto but in advance of an appeal, that shows they failed to use the RB to its fullest.

4. The rules on the sacntions are clear. There is no ay they can increase the saction arbitrarily based on the person or event.

6 (shouldn't 5 come next?). Chain of custody problems can mean alot. Since FL.com speaks to it, they may have something. Mismatched numbers, A sample issues?(when there were no observers), who knows? It is a bit vague but if they are publicly stating it, and we al know it only matters if they can show it can affect the adverse finding, it could be a big issue.

7. Not sure on this. Beyond his silly "Dehydration" theory, he is out of the picture in public.

8. A T/E isue only atters if they can make a case out of it with confirmation of doping by IRMS, longitudinal, or some other means (admission/confession)...An elevated T/E must be reported but without such evidence suffient to make a case, they just increase the scrutiny on an athlete. Form the FL.com info, they speak of T/E issues related to inconsistent levels (concentrations/rations?), gross errors like code umber problems/chain of custody issues (big no-no if they can mean the AAF is impacted)...all of this tells me of sloppy work.

If you think you've just nailed the TdF winner, who is also an american who rode for Lance, don't you think they'd have dotted thier i's and crossed their T's? Especially with the B tests, by then they know who they are testing and what they need to do to be consistent with the A....
LNDD

Verbank, NY

#14 Sep 15, 2006
..dont let the address fool you, it's me. gotta earn a living.
TrustButVerify

Redwood City, CA

#15 Sep 15, 2006
It's a fools game to complain about trivial grammer and speling misteaks in forum posts, no matter WHo makes them.

Unless its funny.

In terms of matches, it looks to me like there are equivalent amounts of BTUs in both of you, within na order of magnitude.

Hey, LNDD, how about those Phonak dopers?

-TBV http://trustbut.blogspot.com for Landis news research and comment.
TrustButVerify

Redwood City, CA

#16 Sep 15, 2006
LNDD, a word to the wise -- don't post things twice thinking the first didn't take. This "echo" has caught a number of us out. I think it is because they have multiple machines behind it, and you sometimes get one, sometimes another. Posting doesn't get from one to the other very quickly, so
if you post to one, look at the other, it doesn't look like your post made it.

Give it a few minutes. It'll give you a chance to think before shooting your mouth off again.

TBV
Raymond

Abeilhan, France

#17 Sep 15, 2006
LNDD wrote:
...especially interesting is Pound's AMAZING BACKPEDDLING to a "...wait and wee approach".
Isn't this the same guy with his "Come Clean" pleas?
The same prejudicial and defamatory buffoon?
He states they have not seen "ALL"te evidence, whihc suggest they've seen maybe "SOME"? Which could be the cause of the backpeddlin' going on?
Combined with more toned down waft of pressure on USADA and the outward presentation of a system that is working....Pound has lost his final thread ofcredibility of any kind at this point, if he had any left.
Hmm, Just a comment! All of your comments are Biased, I have read them all. You do not make comments from a position of total bias and expect other contributers to reply, to your satisfaction.
LNDD

Verbank, NY

#18 Sep 15, 2006
I am not seeking satisfaction, nor do I expect it.

Sorry for the doppio post. advice heeded. No ill will is intended for grammatical or typos!

The Phonak positives are well publicized. It does not quite exceed the systemic nature of an ONCE/LIB SEG, or other TEAM oriented puerto scandals, or Festina for that matter. I am not defending that team in the least. When Lefevre complains about them, that is saying something.
Raymond

Abeilhan, France

#19 Sep 15, 2006
We should all on this civilized forum, express our views, without rancour. I apologise that I have sometimes re-acted in this way.

In the wise words of WILL, we should all remember we are stating OUR interpretation of this drama. But in the end we have no influence on the outcome. That is for others to decide. Good cycling Raymond.
pareader

Lititz, PA

#20 Sep 15, 2006
I have read several places about the question about Landis' observer not ranting and raving during the testing of the B sample. Trust but Verify raises it again in question 7. In most instances i know, an observer is simply there to observe, not participate. In fact Webster's defines an observer as a representative sent to observe but not participate officially in a gathering. I would guess that the rep could not participate or be involved in any way except to observe, hence the name observer. Plus, if I am Landis, I am interested in avoiding a 2 year ban and will not call attention to an observed mistake. That mistake will only mean that the results are not trustworthy and hence, I would avoid the ban. No need to jump up and down and demand to see the lab director. That would be remarkably dumb. The fact that this point continues to be raised as a way to doubt Landis' point that the B sample is not his, makes no sense to me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Floyd Landis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Not Even Lance Deserves This (Dec '13) Jan '17 Phoenix 43
News Greg Lemond demands 'corrupt' cycling czars resign (Oct '12) Aug '16 Bikers 7
News Lance Armstrong's doping drugs (Jan '13) Jan '16 Fart news 189
News Can Armstrong ever be forgiven? (Sep '14) Oct '14 stefanbed53 5
News Opinion: Should we just stop asking about doping? (Jul '13) Apr '14 Carly Jane 2 31
News Lance Armstrong doping documentary contrasts be... (Oct '13) Apr '14 Carly Jane 2 4
Trick or Treat! (Oct '13) Nov '13 My Opinion_El Pas... 5
More from around the web