Come on down: Floyd Landis

[Hugh Januss]

Or a great big book once the court case is settled, with all the gory details.

I wish he'd been asked what he thinks his sporting level is without doping - pro tour, first cat amateur etc.

I think there's probably a lot he couldn't be asked/couldn't talk about because of the ongoing legal cases.

I do have sympathy because he's a human being who admitted his errors, has apologised for his lies and is trying to change things for the better. And so I compare him to his former boss who continues the lie and tries to stamp on anyone who dares tell the truth. If Floyd is to try and pay back the Fairness Fund, how much will Armstrong pay back to all those who bought his wristbands and swallowed his big lie?

The question really is what would his level have been if nobody was doping. We know what it would be if he tried to race the Pro Tour 100% clean and everybody else still doing what they do. It would look a lot like his time at Ouch, although that could have had more to do with his mental state than it did the extent of doping in the US peloton.

 

[patrick767]

I wonder how far down Landis has to fall before anyone gives him credit for being the only rider with the cojones to do what he's doing.

Cojones? He's lied for 4+ years. Why should we believe a word he says now? Now he claims to be coming clean and has lobbed accusations at damn near everyone. Actual, credible evidence of doping should be thoroughly investigated. Difficulty: Years of lying do not make one a credible source.

As for the interview, it seems honest. He's not as contrite as many would like, but he spoke honestly. I give him an A just for agreeing to the interview.

Oh please. Landis is agreeing to any interview he can get lately. He likes the attention.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Cojones? He's lied for 4+ years. Why should we believe a word he says now? Now he claims to be coming clean and has lobbed accusations at damn near everyone. Actual, credible evidence of doping should be thoroughly investigated. Difficulty: Years of lying do not make one a credible source.

So you still like Lance and Bruynell's credibility?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Cojones? He's lied for 4+ years. Why should we believe a word he says now? Now he claims to be coming clean and has lobbed accusations at damn near everyone. Actual, credible evidence of doping should be thoroughly investigated. Difficulty: Years of lying do not make one a credible source.



Oh please. Landis is agreeing to any interview he can get lately. He likes the attention.

So floyd said I didn't dope.
Then he turns around and admits he did dope.

So - he is lying on both occassions?

 

[Anonymous]

Cojones? He's lied for 4+ years. Why should we believe a word he says now? Now he claims to be coming clean and has lobbed accusations at damn near everyone. Actual, credible evidence of doping should be thoroughly investigated. Difficulty: Years of lying do not make one a credible source.



Oh please. Landis is agreeing to any interview he can get lately. He likes the attention.

I'm just curious what you are so afraid of?

You clearly don't believe Floyd now, so did you believe him before (when he denied doping)?

You think he's lying about the UCI corruption/payoffs/tip-offs?

It seems to me the world of cycling would be better off getting to the bottom of these issues, unless some are afraid of what might be discovered.

 

[fatandfast]

So floyd said I didn't dope.
Then he turns around and admits he did dope.

So - he is lying on both occassions?

Floyd is like a flash in the pan magician. When he couldn't make it he found that giving up trade secrets was what he is truly good at. He should be fitted with a forehead mounted lie detector.. that thing would be pegged every time he opens his mouth. Wait until he gives up people in low places. Old riders who are not stacked with cash..being 30 miles from TJ any ride is 2000 bucks from one of no return. All those guys in the drug cartels have hobbies to

 

[WildspokeJoe]

That is one of the vaguest, least specific, and least illuminating interviews I've ever read. No dates, no names, no questions about specific kinds of doping--what a total waste of time.

Gotta agree with you here.

An exclusive interview allows you to ask some pretty pointed questions.

Opportunity: Missed.

 

[mr. tibbs]

When I read this question, I perked right up:

CN: What do you think of the systems in place? You and others have evaded detection for so long? How did you do it?

But then the answer:

FL: That’s a complex question but it’s not that difficult to do.

Disappointing, to say the least--but maybe his reticence is dictated by the investigation.

 

[ChrisE]

It read to me like a guy who philophicaly now grasps the importance of being true to ones self and being responsible for his own actions.
He`s comments about role models were spot on as were his views that it isnt a black and white issue and the banned list is somwhat unrealistic...id say the inclusion of many drugs that aren`t peds tells you that the list is partialy motivated by social ideology.
I`d also say heres a guy who`s grown up and doesnt give a xxxx if anyone believes him.
He`s telling the truth.

You owe me a keyboard.

The bolded above is inversely proportionate to his bank account. That does not mean he isn't telling the truth. I just have a different take on his motivation.

 

[buckwheat]

Maybe it is just his way of talking, but

1) He can't seem to say "doping", or "cheating" only "it"
2) He can't seem to say "lying", or "confess my crime", only "it"
3) Nearly every answer starts, "No, that's not it..."

It does not sound like he truely believes that "it" doping was wrong or that "it", comming clean, is an admission that he has been a cheat and a liar.

Floyd was and still is a flawed human being who appears to have no moral compass. I have always liked Floyd, warts and all.

As of right now, I'd agree with that statement, and that is the overriding impression I was left with by the interview.

The guy seems like a prime candidate for any kind of cult membership.

After all the talk and all the discussion, it seems to me that you finally come down to right and wrong, and Floyd really needs to say "what I did was wrong," for his own sake. Has he said this?

Maybe all of the details are going to come out in the Federal Investigation, but I doubt it.

 

[ChrisE]

As of right now, I'd agree with that statement, and that is the overriding impression I was left with by the interview.

The guy seems like a prime candidate for any kind of cult membership.

After all the talk and all the discussion, it seems to me that you finally come down to right and wrong, and Floyd really needs to say "what I did was wrong," for his own sake. Has he said this?

Maybe all of the details are going to come out in the Federal Investigation, but I doubt it.

He hasn't said it because it isn't wrong in the context of the pro peloton. He is a product of that, and had no problem doping. The ones that have made it to that point have already rationalized it away.

He is ****ed he got caught, and has suffered for it while others let him slide down the hole. It's payback time. That is the bottom line.

 

[Spank226]

That is one of the vaguest, least specific, and least illuminating interviews I've ever read. No dates, no names, no questions about specific kinds of doping--what a total waste of time.

I agree. His responses are not only very political, generic and repetitive, they are VERY indicative of someone going through or who has gone through a 12-step program:

* admitting that one cannot control one's addiction or compulsion;
* recognizing a greater power that can give strength;
* examining past errors with the help of a sponsor (experienced member);
* making amends for these errors;
* learning to live a new life with a new code of behaviour;
* helping others that suffer from the same addictions or compulsions.

Talk to someone who has experience with a 12-Step program where the subject of who they "were" comes up and you'll get very similar responses-- the past is the past, I take responsibility for what I've done, I'm moving forward, the decision making was very complex and yes, I have and could rehash details but it all boils down to it was my fault, my decision, I'm moving forward and not looking into the details for excuses (but if you look and listen closely, there's still some hints of denial of 100% culpability but still giving "the party line").


Moving on:

I couldn't help but wonder while I was reading the interview how much of the language is that of the writer and how much is the language of the subject (Landis). At times it reads like an interview translated from another language where subtleties of language may have been dropped and synonyms used to replace words simply because the translating process didn't offer an accurate word to relay some of the connotations of the original language used. This can happen when transcribing an interview in shorthand (if anyone still uses that!) as the recorder/reporter will abbreviate long-winded descriptions into all-encompassing symbols/words. Then in the long-hand writing process, the short hand is less accurately re-written.

In short, it made me wish that every back and forth "interview" were also published as a raw, unedited audio file with a link at the end of the article. Because, let's face it, what is the likelihood that the interview WASN'T recorded by some recording device. Yes, it starts to take the "journalism" (ie: editing functions) out of process, there will be long stretches of boring or unrelated banter, but sometimes an "exclusive" interview where there is the admitted chance of bias by the reporter warrants such a step to preserve the "publications" integrity.

I'm sure the sites "hit count" goes up, but not entirely sure they deserve it for this article. But that's the nature of online journalism nowadays.

 

[thehog]

Take me back to 2009. Lance comeback, zero positives at the Tour, the UCI claiming a 100% clean sport. Life was good.

Just look at the mess the UCI has got itself into again.

Oh dear.

 

[skidmark]

I thought the interview was fine, I mean, sure it wasn't juicy, but all the info he's given that's sensationalistic and full of tidbits was released in May, and he seems to have no interest in flogging that dead horse (at least at every opportunity). I dunno, his approach seems to have a ring of truth to it, as somebody motivated by opportunism and sensationalism would presumably have their agenda very thinly veiled. For example, I would expect someone in his position to bring up Lance and all his other teammates at every opportunity. But he merely talks about his own reflections and experiences.

I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, the idea that he doesn't 'have credibility' because he lied earlier seems to me to be beyond the point - everybody lies about something, so you could really say that about anyone. And he carried out an obvious lie for several years, now he's saying the opposite. If he is now lying about doping just to get attention, and all of his crazy defences for his 2006 positive were true, I would find that to be very strange. It's much more logical to me that he'd be telling the truth now, and his actions (like vowing to pay back the FFF) have the ring of someone trying to make amends, like an addicted person on a 12-step recovery program.

Don't get me wrong, when he dodges the question about whether his motivation is fuelled by not getting a ride in the peloton, I think it's definitely clear that that was the last straw for him, so there is some element of revenge/reciprocation there for sure. But that doesn't need to be conflated with the notion of whether or not he's telling the truth, I think he still is.

At any rate, I think it's summed up the best in the interview:

CN: Why should people believe you now?

FL: People can believe whatever they like.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Landis speaks: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/interview-floyd-landis-speaks-exclusively-to-cyclingnews

Good interview.

CN: Do you wish there was a way you could have come forward without implicating people?

FL: There was a way, but it would still be a lie. The story involves other people. That's the nature of the story and so to tell the story and try to fabricate a reason why it was just me wouldn't clear my conscience at all. I may have well not said anything - that's my way of thinking.

Yes, good interview. And now I can understand why he didn't come out with the truth earlier.

CN: Any words for your supporters?

FL: I appreciate anyone that stands by me and tries to understand the complexity of what happened...

Part of the complexity being to tell the truth would have implicated everyone else, and he was not ready and willing to do that earlier. Those other people were his cycling family. So from that standpoint I give him credit for not ratting them out. Up until now I have been skeptical of Floyd's motives and actions. I think my opinion of that is changing.

 

[MacRoadie]

Wait until he gives up people in low places. Old riders who are not stacked with cash..being 30 miles from TJ any ride is 2000 bucks from one of no return. All those guys in the drug cartels have hobbies to

A new level of stupid...

 

[flicker]

I agree. His responses are not only very political, generic and repetitive, they are VERY indicative of someone going through or who has gone through a 12-step program:

* admitting that one cannot control one's addiction or compulsion;
* recognizing a greater power that can give strength;
* examining past errors with the help of a sponsor (experienced member);
* making amends for these errors;
* learning to live a new life with a new code of behaviour;
* helping others that suffer from the same addictions or compulsions.

Talk to someone who has experience with a 12-Step program where the subject of who they "were" comes up and you'll get very similar responses-- the past is the past, I take responsibility for what I've done, I'm moving forward, the decision making was very complex and yes, I have and could rehash details but it all boils down to it was my fault, my decision, I'm moving forward and not looking into the details for excuses (but if you look and listen closely, there's still some hints of denial of 100% culpability but still giving "the party line").


Moving on:

I couldn't help but wonder while I was reading the interview how much of the language is that of the writer and how much is the language of the subject (Landis). At times it reads like an interview translated from another language where subtleties of language may have been dropped and synonyms used to replace words simply because the translating process didn't offer an accurate word to relay some of the connotations of the original language used. This can happen when transcribing an interview in shorthand (if anyone still uses that!) as the recorder/reporter will abbreviate long-winded descriptions into all-encompassing symbols/words. Then in the long-hand writing process, the short hand is less accurately re-written.

In short, it made me wish that every back and forth "interview" were also published as a raw, unedited audio file with a link at the end of the article. Because, let's face it, what is the likelihood that the interview WASN'T recorded by some recording device. Yes, it starts to take the "journalism" (ie: editing functions) out of process, there will be long stretches of boring or unrelated banter, but sometimes an "exclusive" interview where there is the admitted chance of bias by the reporter warrants such a step to preserve the "publications" integrity.

I'm sure the sites "hit count" goes up, but not entirely sure they deserve it for this article. But that's the nature of online journalism nowadays.

Floyd is going through 12 step. I can tell he is doing well.
Also he is being careful about what he says. Very professional on his part. Floyd is part of an ongoing investigation. He does not owe anyone any juicy parts, he is working with the FEDs. Kudos to Floyd he is showing a great maturity.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Floyd is going through 12 step. I can tell he is doing well.
Also he is being careful about what he says. Very professional on his part. Floyd is part of an ongoing investigation. He does not owe anyone any juicy parts, he is working with the FEDs. Kudos to Floyd he is showing a great maturity.

Who hijacked flicker's account?

 

[lean mean &green]

the best revenge is living well

For Landis detractors, you are steadily losing things with which to attack him. He sounds like a man who is fast in his resolve and is doing things for the right reasons.

mostly agree. i think FL has been pretty truthful since his now infamous emails became public. there are some things, for legal reasons, i'm sure he can't talk about yet but in terms of reshaping his public image, he's hitting most of the right notes in my opinion.

either revenge has very little to do with his motivations or he's REALLY good at hiding them.

 

[flicker]

Who hijacked flicker's account?

I like honesty. I make fun of absurdities like Tyler having an unborn twin whose blood altered his blood and caused a blood anomaly.

I truly feel Landis was cheated out of the 2006 Tour. One of the most enjoyable bicycle races that I have seen.

If Floyd can speak frankly in a way that us simple Americans can understand,I think it will benefit all sports in our country, the USA.

 

[Chuffy]

mostly agree. i think FL has been pretty truthful since his now infamous emails became public. there are some things, for legal reasons, i'm sure he can't talk about yet but in terms of reshaping his public image, he's hitting most of the right notes in my opinion.

either revenge has very little to do with his motivations or he's REALLY good at hiding them.

I doubt he gives a rat's buttock about 'reshaping his public image'. Floyd gives the impression (always has) of doing things his way and to his satisfaction even if it looks c0ck-eyed to outsiders. I'm not sure if you're being cynical when you made that comment, but if you were then I would suggest that someone else might be a better target...

Agree with the rest of what you said.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I like honesty.

Mind if I hold you to that?

 

[131313]

I thought it was a great interview, probably the best I've read with an athlete talking about doping. I realize it doesn't satisfy the blood lust of those in the clinic, but oh well.

I thought it was a brutally honest assessment of just how complicated the issue was that he faced, the decisions he made and how he feels about it. I liked the fact that he simply answered the questioned based on his real feelings versus saying what he thought people wanted to hear. It would a lot easier to feign great remorse, when the reality is that it's more complicated than that.

In my limited chatting with him, my guess is that it was translated word-for-word. While he has little formal education, he's an intelligent and thoughtful guy when he speaks.

Anyway, I think those claiming there's no "substance" just aren't reading it critically enough.

 

[Cloxxki]

The guy is central in 2 ongoing lawsuits. He cannot easily share new specifics with the press.
I am not sure the interview could have gotten much more out of a man in this situation.
I do like Floyd's up front atitude, it's just getting better and better. He's not trying to make a saint out of himself, just want to be able to say the truth and ride his bike. Some very elimentary things in life. I also applaud likes to race, after all of this, even if he's given up on riding the TdF ever again, his obvious main goal in life until something new comes up.
One thing, he says he can't go and ask someone for advice on what to do? If his letters and emails were NOT written by a team of young entreprising lawyers, Floyd himself is quite a genious, with a wit! And why would I gamble on him lying about anything today, I may have to give him even more credit than I already have. Definately the coolest ex-doper. Or, pro cyclist, period, by lack of many clean ones to rate him against.

 

[Hugh Januss]

A new level of stupid...

fnf can bring it