Who is Floyd Landis?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
TeamSkyFans said:
Can someone tell me what that says. I cant focus properly on huge paragraphs made up of loads of short sentances. What is it with people around here being incapable of using the return key :confused:
I think he was trying to say something along the lines of:

"Floyd is blowing the whistle because he wants money; thus, his motives may extend beyond a pure desire to clean up cycling; thus, yada yada yada, blah blah blah, Lance 'likes [his] credibility'; the end."
 
Jan 5, 2010
295
0
0
ergmonkey said:
"Who is Floyd Landis?"? Wow, thanks for blowing my mind, Ayn Rand.

But, if you must know, this is Floyd Landis--and he looks like a pretty good dude:

Really, that's all it take to be a "pretty good dude", sit in a river while drinking an adult beverage. On my last visit to LA (Los Angeles) I met a "pretty good dude" sitting in his own urine while drinking an adult beverage. I guess I judged him and Floyd unfairly. I figured character had something to do with being a "pretty good dude." My bad, good to know!
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
Trying to figure out all the spite from some of you folks...

Floyd:

1. Made it to Europe.
2. Realized if you really want to play the game, you have to level the field (dope).
3. Made it to the top of the mountain.
4. Fell off.
5. Solicited funds from fans for his defense.
6. Fought and lost.
7. Tried to return to his profession.
8. Found he was blacklisted.
9. Blew the whistle on The King.

OK, except for #5 (Fairness Fund) and #9 (omerta), he is really NO DIFFERENT than most if not all the other busted riders of the recent past.

So in trying to figure out what it is you guys REALLY seem to hate about the guy..., which is it? #5 or #9?
B/c there really ain't NOTHING ELSE.

(If there is, pls tell me you harbor the same ill-will against Jorg Jaksche and Patrik Sinkewitz??) :rolleyes:
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
1. I think there was a lot more of #2 before he even got to #1.
2. Don't really like this about Floyd. But I suppose it is the name of the game.
3. See 2.
4. Fell off and thumbed his nose at everyone in sight.
5. Really bad. Glad I didn't give him any money. Never thought of it really.
6. A drain of cycling's doping funds in hindsight.
7. Who cares.
8. Found out he couldn't extort when the predictable #7 met reality.
9. Followed through on this when #'s 1-8 didn't work out. Needs to take out the king for any hope of a payday that #3 promised to be with doping.

So what's to like?
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
miloman said:
Really, that's all it take to be a "pretty good dude", sit in a river while drinking an adult beverage. On my last visit to LA (Los Angeles) I met a "pretty good dude" sitting in his own urine while drinking an adult beverage. I guess I judged him and Floyd unfairly. I figured character had something to do with being a "pretty good dude." My bad, good to know!
Well, "pretty good dude" was originally meant to be fairly tongue-in-cheek and I was sure that at least your avatar would be sophisticated enough to pick up on that invocation of Valley Kid vernacular. But if you just can't let it go, then consider the following:

Any half-way decent dude knows the difference between a majestic river and his own dank urine.

Also, exactly how did you "judge" the (presumably) homeless man in Los Angeles? Was he a bum? A cheat? A sinner? A saint? Just wondering...
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
scribe said:
1. I think there was a lot more of #2 before he even got to #1.
2. Don't really like this about Floyd. But I suppose it is the name of the game.
3. See 2.
4. Fell off and thumbed his nose at everyone in sight.
5. Really bad. Glad I didn't give him any money. Never thought of it really.
6. A drain of cycling's doping funds in hindsight.
7. Who cares.
8. Found out he couldn't extort when the predictable #7 met reality.
9. Followed through on this when #'s 1-8 didn't work out. Needs to take out the king for any hope of a payday that #3 promised to be with doping.

So what's to like?
So, in one breath you say you don't like doping #2.

And yet when the guy confesses in what could be biggest clean up of the sport you ask whats to like?

So - did you want him to be quiet or not? (its ok, we know the answer)
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
So, in one breath you say you don't like doping #2.

And yet when the guy confesses in what could be biggest clean up of the sport you ask whats to like?

So - did you want him to be quiet or not? (its ok, we know the answer)
Give me a list of clean riders, and I'll enthusiastically tell you which ones I can like to watch race.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
scribe said:
Give me a list of clean riders, and I'll enthusiastically tell you which ones I can like to watch race.
I have no idea what you are on about - and especially to the question I asked.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Doc. It's a strawman.

To be honest, I don't know how you arrived at your point either.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
Once again...

So again:

He solicited funds, and he blew the whistle on The King. That's all you guys have.

As for soliciting funds, that's overblown. Supposedly the lions' share of "the Fund" came from one donor. Dr. Brent Kay, his personal sponsor -- apparently to the tune of $500K. (Yes, he also wrote a book. If you bought that and read it, sorry you're not entitled to a refund.)

So, that leaves....the Lance whistle-blowing activities. And a whole lot of misplaced holier-than-thou fanboy hate.

(Enlighten me on the "thumbed his nose at everybody". We're talking about Landis right?? Not Lance??? :p)
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
At extreme risk of violating all of my principles with respect to innocent until proven guilty, never judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes, do not stereotype people, etc., etc., etc., I wil say this: having grown up in northern Indiana amonst many Amish and Mennonite folks, I feel as if I have at least some insight into Landis's thinking/mindset/morality...and it ain't pretty.

To put it somewhat more mildly: if I were a biographer trying to understand what makes Landis tick, I'd definitely be looking at his upbringing for explanations...
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
Whew, it's a good thing you didn't resort to stereotyping... :confused:

If your parents are Catholic but you are agnostic, does that mean we can attribute any/all of your actions to good 'ole Catholic angst??

(I grew up near the Amish, too. Good cheese.)
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
NashbarShorts said:
Whew, it's a good thing you didn't resort to stereotyping... :confused:

If your parents are Catholic but you are agnostic, does that mean we can attribute any/all of your actions to good 'ole Catholic angst??

(I grew up near the Amish, too. Good cheese.)
I grew up around lots of Mennonites. Cute chicks, nice dresses. Cool hats too. They never came to the gravel pits where we hung out, burned pallets, tried to set the high mark with our pickups, and drank warm beer. Shame. They were probably at home planning world domination.
 
Jan 5, 2010
295
0
0
ergmonkey said:
Well, "pretty good dude" was originally meant to be fairly tongue-in-cheek and I was sure that at least your avatar would be sophisticated enough to pick up on that invocation of Valley Kid vernacular. But if you just can't let it go, then consider the following:

Any half-way decent dude knows the difference between a majestic river and his own dank urine.

Also, exactly how did you "judge" the (presumably) homeless man in Los Angeles? Was he a bum? A cheat? A sinner? A saint? Just wondering...[/QUOTE]a

Actually, I didn't judge him at all other than thinking his behavior rather foolish. He was a 20-something kid who appeared to have gotten bounced from a club and didn't know that the party was over and it was time to shut it down. I never thought about it until just now, but I guess you could draw a parallel between him and Floyd. They both got bounced, stuck around too long hoping the party would continue and ultimately ended up soiling themselves and their surroundings.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
miloman said:
Actually, I didn't judge him at all other than thinking his behavior rather foolish. He was a 20-something kid who appeared to have gotten bounced from a club and didn't know that the party was over and it was time to shut it down. I never thought about it until just now, but I guess you could draw a parallel between him and Floyd. They both got bounced, stuck around too long hoping the party would continue and ultimately ended up soiling themselves and their surroundings.
Your strained metaphor would work at least a little bit better if your party-goer had witnessed a massive amount of cocaine dealing in the club, had snorted some himself, and then decided to turn in the drug kingpin after becoming angry about getting tossed from the club.

Man, what an incredible loss to society it would be if we allowed such junkies to send cocaine dealers to prison. Oh, the inhumanity!
 
miloman said:
ergmonkey said:
Well, "pretty good dude" was originally meant to be fairly tongue-in-cheek and I was sure that at least your avatar would be sophisticated enough to pick up on that invocation of Valley Kid vernacular. But if you just can't let it go, then consider the following:

Any half-way decent dude knows the difference between a majestic river and his own dank urine.

Also, exactly how did you "judge" the (presumably) homeless man in Los Angeles? Was he a bum? A cheat? A sinner? A saint? Just wondering...[/QUOTE]a

Actually, I didn't judge him at all other than thinking his behavior rather foolish. He was a 20-something kid who appeared to have gotten bounced from a club and didn't know that the party was over and it was time to shut it down. I never thought about it until just now, but I guess you could draw a parallel between him and Floyd. They both got bounced, stuck around too long hoping the party would continue and ultimately ended up soiling themselves and their surroundings.
 
miloman said:
ergmonkey said:
Well, "pretty good dude" was originally meant to be fairly tongue-in-cheek and I was sure that at least your avatar would be sophisticated enough to pick up on that invocation of Valley Kid vernacular. But if you just can't let it go, then consider the following:

Any half-way decent dude knows the difference between a majestic river and his own dank urine.

Also, exactly how did you "judge" the (presumably) homeless man in Los Angeles? Was he a bum? A cheat? A sinner? A saint? Just wondering...[/QUOTE]a

Actually, I didn't judge him at all other than thinking his behavior rather foolish. He was a 20-something kid who appeared to have gotten bounced from a club and didn't know that the party was over and it was time to shut it down. I never thought about it until just now, but I guess you could draw a parallel between him and Floyd. They both got bounced, stuck around too long hoping the party would continue and ultimately ended up soiling themselves and their surroundings.
I hope FLandis doesn't come out of this with anymore than he had the first day he cheated which is almost the point he is at now. I'm not sure why you think he soiled anything other than himself. He cheated and has paid the price, good. He may bring down other cheats, even better.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
JRTinMA said:
I hope FLandis doesn't come out of this with anymore than he had the first day he cheated which is almost the point he is at now.
Well, then you really need to write your Congressman a letter and explain how terrible you think the False Claims Act is and why there should be absolutely no incentives for whistle-blowers.

Read about the recent GSK settlement for $750 Million, based on their admitting to selling knowingly contaminated drugs and their acceptance of sub-standard production facilities overseas? Clearly you wish that was never exposed, either, as it was only because of a jilted former employee that those allegations came to light. That former employee is now rich.

I guess we should just learn to ignore people who might have an insider's view and simply turn a blind eye to all of this ugliness? The world would be so much nicer if we just ignored all of the cheats and let them cheat in silence, right?
 
Jan 5, 2010
295
0
0
ergmonkey said:
Your strained metaphor would work at least a little bit better if your party-goer had witnessed a massive amount of cocaine dealing in the club, had snorted some himself, and then decided to turn in the drug kingpin after becoming angry about getting tossed from the club.

Man, what an incredible loss to society it would be if we allowed such junkies to send cocaine dealers to prison. Oh, the inhumanity!
Which bring me back to the question “Who is Floyd Landis?” and should we be accepting of him and his motives given his history? In response to your analogy of the party-goer and drug kingpin, I would hardly say that Floyd was an unsuspecting victim who witnessed an illegal activity and fell victim to temptation. He was one of the “kingpins” having risen to the ranks of the highest, high only to be toppled by, well who knows what ultimately tripped him up. I confess to have a hard time reconciling my feeling about criminals who get a second chance or “do-overs” because they provide evidence leading to the prosecution of others. Maybe whistle blower Floyd isn’t a criminal as in the strict sense of your analogy, but it still leaves me every bit as conflicted. I want to see a clean sport. I would like to look at the podium and feel fairly confident that the winner was/is riding clean. However, I am not sure that Floyd and some of the other people coming out of the wood work are worthy of praise. I guess it’s a little like a toilet plunger. It’s a useful tool and certainly gets the job done, but most people would agree it doesn’t belong in the living room, on display, for all to admire!
 
ergmonkey said:
Well, then you really need to write your Congressman a letter and explain how terrible you think the False Claims Act is and why there should be absolutely no incentives for whistle-blowers.

Read about the recent GSK settlement for $750 Million, based on their admitting to selling knowingly contaminated drugs and their acceptance of sub-standard production facilities overseas? Clearly you wish that was never exposed, either, as it was only because of a jilted former employee that those allegations came to light. That former employee is now rich.

I guess we should just learn to ignore people who might have an insider's view and simply turn a blind eye to all of this ugliness? The world would be so much nicer if we just ignored all of the cheats and let them cheat in silence, right?
Your premise is flawed in fact its ridiculous. I know the GSK case well and the whistleblower was not complicit in the crime, she discovered that GSK was not following GMP and was involved in a coverup. This is what the whistleblower act was designed to uncover and it was successful, 96MM well spent. Floyd cheated and became a rich man through cheating, he lost it all through dumb pride and now he blows the whistle. He should not be awarded for cheating, sorry you think he should. I wish him all the best but I don't want him awarded for cheating. Come off your high horse.
 
TeamSkyFans said:
Will people please stop posting huge pictures.. this thread wont fit on my screen!

Thank god for opera's block content option to remove specific objects.
sorry, it was smaller on the website i pinched it from, so don't really know what happened there...

scribe said:
1. I think there was a lot more of #2 before he even got to #1.
2. Don't really like this about Floyd. But I suppose it is the name of the game.
3. See 2.
4. Fell off and thumbed his nose at everyone in sight.
5. Really bad. Glad I didn't give him any money. Never thought of it really.
6. A drain of cycling's doping funds in hindsight.
7. Who cares.
8. Found out he couldn't extort when the predictable #7 met reality.
9. Followed through on this when #'s 1-8 didn't work out. Needs to take out the king for any hope of a payday that #3 promised to be with doping.

So what's to like?
I'm kind of in agreeance with both this list and Nashbar's.

Floyd's just like everyone else - he's made some mistakes along the way.
At least he's doing something about that, even if it appears at times to be slightly misguided. This is a lot more than most other convicted dopers are doing...
Sure, there may be a degree of scorn at the sport's biggest doper and how he's gotten away with it for so long, but that too is understandable.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
JRTinMA said:
Your premise is flawed in fact its ridiculous. I know the GSK case well and the whistleblower was not complicit in the crime, she discovered that GSK was not following GMP and was involved in a coverup. This is what the whistleblower act was designed to uncover and it was successful, 96MM well spent. Floyd cheated and became a rich man through cheating, he lost it all through dumb pride and now he blows the whistle. He should not be awarded for cheating, sorry you think he should. I wish him all the best but I don't want him awarded for cheating. Come off your high horse.
The high horse is all yours for thinking that only the perfectly innocent should profit under the False Claims Act.

The whole point of the Act is to expose the underlying crimes. It is overtly not moralistic about rewarding only innocent observers.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Archibald said:
definately. what goes around comes around... so it should hit him HARD
Even if nothing comes of this, I think it already has. You can even see the effect on the goings on with the UCI. Some want much more and will holler if nothing additional happens, but this has been an effective exercise.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY