Talk:Floyd Landis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

State of the article...

  • "Floyd Landis was raised in a conservative family but he started taking steroids at 12 years old. He cheated in the Tour De France Mennonite community in the unincorporated village..." It looks like more vandalism? -- Joiry 01:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I am deeply concerned with recent anon edits and inappropriate posts (which belong on a sporting forum, not Wikipedia) insinuating beyond a shadow of a doubt that Floyd's guilty and "weasel words" in the article claiming that Floyd's already lost the title although the UCI and the USADA has not released their final decision yet. No matter what one feels about Floyd Landis or the allegations surrounding him, it does no good to present speculation as fact in the article and make inappropriate posts in the talk section. --Folksong 01:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Inappropriate" posts in a wikipedia talk section? Necessarily the postings will reflect a variety of opinions of the discussed subject... otherwise the talk section itself could be the article, got it? I consider your attempt to supress other opinions expressed in a discussion as highly inappropriate. The problems with the article could exist though Cycling fan22 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • First off, welcome to Wikipedia. Let me start off by saying that having a pugnacious and sarcastic tone isn't going to take you very far here. Your comments and message on your userpage about being a new user show that you are probably unfamiliar with the purpose of Wikipedia and the article talk pages. Before making any further commentary, please read number #6 on the following link.Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and for those act as if they are sure that Floyd's title will be revoked although the USADA and UCI have not made their decisions yet, that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is a repository for facts, and the talk pages are for discussing issues in the article and how to improve them. Once again, everyone is entitled to their opinion, just not here. --Folksong 02:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right and i have to apologise. As i said the article really could have some flaws, especially regarding the "B-Sample"-part. Cycling fan22 03:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope I didn't come off as too rough, but I just wanted to convey the policies of Wikipedia and I look forward to your input in improving this article. Thanks and happy editing.--Folksong 03:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thing is, Landis losing his title is not speculation but fact. --Sloane 04:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it's not a fact. The UCI hasn't even started the sanction process yet. Please stop making false claims. -- Jibal 07:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That was my impression as well. I'm not a cycling fan, but from every media report I've come across it seems as if the second positive test leads directly to the revocation of his title. -- Ruthfulbarbarity 06:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Impressions and seemings aren't the basis for WP articles. No news report that I have seen says that, although plenty of editorial writers and bloggers have put forth such impressions. The news reports don't say that because it isn't true; there's due process that must be followed. -- Jibal 07:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, not directly. The UCI is now forwarding this information to the American cycling association (whatever its name), and they will decide on formal disciplinary matters. This will likely end in a two year ban and a striping of the title, but it is not automatic. --Stephan Schulz 06:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
So let's please stop with claims about the title having been stripped or automatically stripped etc., and leave speculative editorial phrasing like "currently", "as it stands", "for the moment", etc. out of the article; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Jibal 09:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Good article: I think once all the controversy has ended and the news has stopped about the doping inquiry that this could be a Good Article or some such thing. I think he is probably now world reknown or will be once they officially strip him of the malliot jaune. --Kearney6 16:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Request for cleanup

Proposal: New article on drug testing and reliability of test results

  • Request to put this excellent material on drug testing and the entire topic of statistical testing in general in a new article that discuisses the false positives and negatives and why we use inexpensive testes (i.e. because with a low enuf cost, we call apply ito to millions as in the SAT we give to high schoolers) and the limits iof massive testring. The SAT and otter scholastic tests are good tools to identify really smart people, i.e. 99+ percentile folks cannot do so unless they are smart. But "Failing" the SAT does not mean you are dumb. And the scores in between mean someting else althoghether and have validiity if we also know more about the student. Likewise testing of urine and blood for presence of diseases and doping. Bona Fides 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal/Request: UCI Testing Procedures

  • Can someone cover the sample taking process and chain of custody of the samples? How are they taken, sealed, transported, who can access them, etc?
  • In my opinion, this has to be clarified in an extra article. (fbahr. Aug 10, 2006. 12:17 CEST)

Request: Neutral point of view...

  • I think that larger parts of this article needs to be rewritten, as it does not follow the guidelines given in WP:NPOVD. The article is quite clearly biased, especially the description of his performance in Tour de France 2006 is written as a pure tribute, suitable on a fan page, but clearly inappropriate here. --Denvesletigeren 16:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, go ahead if you can improve it. Socafan 22:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree - the writing is sub par. Hu Gadarn 20:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Request: Form and balance...

  • Guys, this is the wiki for a man named Floyd Landis. I don't think 2/3 of the opening paragraph (top) should be dedicated to this doping scandal thing. One sentence is more than enough... that last sentence should be taken out, but I don't want to flat out take it out and have someone put it right back in, or get yelled at like I'm an idiot.
  • There should be no reason that the ALLEDGED "scandal" should take up more then half of the opening paragraph. Should be something like :"He won the 2006 Tour de France however is accused by some for using an illegal substance." I edited out some of the items. --Firebird2k6
  • 71.196.150.64: Can you log in and also put some discussion here or below explaining your edits to the controversial discussion on doping? --Brian Hill 18:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's the worst doping scandal in the history of cycling. It's only normal that it receives this much attention in the article. Landis will be known forever as the man who doped himself into winning the tour.--Sloane 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You're speculating on future events; inserting such into an article is against WP policy. It is not "only normal" that this article be painted with POV and OR. -- Jibal 06:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What future events? He tested positive. He will be stripped of as title. Those are facts reported on by various media. There's barely any POV or OR in the article.
  • "will be" is future tense. No media has reported "he will be stripped of his title" as a fact; it's not a fact until it happens. And please sign your contributions. -- Jibal 02:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Though, it's most presumable that Landis will be sanctioned (by the TdF commitee, the UCI, or so), it hasn't happened yet and Landis still has legal remedies; so: just relax, stay on facts, the future will shape it. There's nothing for sure as long as it hasn't happened (and speculations, though, quite well founded, are no Wikipedia means). (Imagine, we in Germany were sure that we lost our "cycling hero" Jan Ullrich -- right now, it isn't quite clear if he is to be sanctioned due to some legality issues; the same for Ivan Basso.) So, just calm down, it's only about days or weeks ... --fbahr. Aug 9, 2006. 11:15 (GMT+1)

Discussion: Ryan?

  • Is his daughter really named Ryan?? Was their a source for that or is that vandalism? --Nuclearmound 03:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not convinced. I've seen a lot of references that daughter ryan (born 1996) is actually a stepdaughter; he married Amber in 2001
  • I read the question as concerning the name, not the specific lineage. Several sources mention Ryan as a stepdaughter, which is a more specific label than daughter, so it is probably true. If you feel the additional precision is significant, edit the article accordingly. --Per Abrahamsen 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I just thought it was weird to call a girl Ryan, thats why I questioned it, but if yall have seen it said in the news and stuff than I guess her name is Ryan. --68.49.46.220 03:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Nuclearmound

Discussion: Terminology and wordage

  • Can somebody fix some of the terminology as to appeal more for the layman/non-cyclists. I stumbled upon this: "Landis often pushed the pace in the mountains to break the pack before Armstrong made his final move" and do not know what "pushed the pace" and "break the pack" means. Thanks! --71.110.43.46 18:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Push the pace" means to set a higher pace or speed. This, I think, is a phrase not limited to or specific to cycling. If you push the pace high enough, you can "break the pack", in other words causing the pack (or peleton) to break up into a number of small groups or individual riders as riders no longer were able to keep up. --69.29.98.223 20:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not hard to look it up and I did so. My point is that there are terms and phrases present that not every non-cyclist knows about - "break the pack" is one of them. "Break up the pack into smaller groups or individual riders" would be more understandable to the layman IMO. 71.110.13.166 19:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: Second winner to be stripped of yellow jersey?

  • The article stated "Should the follow-up testing confirm the result, Landis would be the second winner of the Tour de France to lose his yellow jersey" but gave no hint of who the first was, and the Tour de France article doesn't mention such a stripped title, nor can I find any other indication of a previous incident; OTOH, I found one article through google that said there was no previous incident. So, I changed "second" to "first". If someone has contrary information, they can put it in the article, with the obvious requirement of naming the rider and year and providing a citation. --Jibal 09:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Maurice Garin was stripped of the title in the 1904 race for hitching a ride on a train. [4] --Feyer 14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • He is the first to be stripped because of doping, but the second to be stripped in general. IIRC, the reference to 1904 was cited in the history when the change was made from first to second. --OliverH 09:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Doping Allegations

  • I just heard it on the news briefly, Floyd Landis failed a anti-doping test. His testorone level was anormaly high. Can someone add that? --Deenoe 14:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I just heard it on the news too, we can afford to wait a few hours until we get good verifiable sources. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news wire service. --Cyde↔Weys 14:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • USATOADY has it now. It's good to go.
  • Holy sh*t, I can't believe he was taking drugs!
  • Again unverified. However he was taking Cortisone which was a known thing before he did the tour. And Cortisone is known to affect epitestosterone according to some medical journals I've read. What is Cortisone? It's a steroid drug to put it frankly. Now above naturally occurring 6:1 ratio is quite rare which is stated here http://www.asada.gov.au/substances/facts/testosterone.htm but it is possible to happen. But the rules for that organization states 4:1 meaning you could be kicked out for cheating because the body decided to regulate a higher ratio as well however it's can be excused by "physiological investigation" --ViriiK 11:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reports indicate his ratio was 11:1, making it rather meaningless whether the cutoff is 6:1 or 4:1 or even 8:1. --OliverH 12:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me get back to you guys; I agree with OliverH that it's rather meaningless; an induced dosage would be more like 100:1 I think but I'll do some digging. We had the same thing here in Canada with a triathlete (Kelly Guest) where his nandrolone levels were slightly over - just from being in great shape; if on a bb dosage they would have been WAY over, by 1000:1 or whatever, instead of as in that case 1.01-1 where 1=IOC-mandated allowable dosage. The issue is arbitrarily low testing levels IMO. --Skookum1 15:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Erm, sorry, but I doubt that. People want to boost their performance, not kill themselves directly with the stuff. 11:1 is ten times the level of an average guy. Once more: The normal level is 1:1, maybe a bit higher than that, but rarely above 2:1. The cutoff value where is is now deemed an indication of doping is 4:1 -WAY above anything normal. Even IF someone has elevated values, he's unlikely to beat that. The cutoff is already generous and NOT arbitrarily low. Cf. [5] The ideas you have about what induced levels look like are fast tracks to cancer, plus I doubt that you'd to an extraordinary bike race if over the entire duration, you have a raging hard-on. Check out this and this publication. High levels of androgenic steroids are pretty good ways to ruin your organs. Plus they make aggressive and are likely to cause balding. --OliverH 16:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, well, you'd better read the discussion and reference papers listed on Talk:Anabolic steroid about that aggression thing. And as for balding....big deal. --Skookum1 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You'd better read the reference papers I cited here. The "reference papers listed on Anabolic steroid" are only one. Two are not listed in a professional fashion and can't be looked up without using a database. The only one that is properly referenced refers to long-term administration, not to brief boosts. The statement on aggression is also contradicted by ref 2 on the same article. And as for balding, you think it won't raise suspicions if someone balds at a totally unnatural speed? --OliverH 08:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Shame on you Floyd. Vicious race despite you could still compete clean like most others... --195.210.193.125 21:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Shame on you for editorializing on the talk page; that's not what it's for. -- Jibal 07:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Most of the others are clean? I'm beginning to doubt that anyone in the pro peloton is clean. Nobody else found to have failed a test does not mean they are clean! First, they typically only test 3 guys per day. It seems what they do is push the test limits. Enough EPO and blood doping to get near but not exceed the 50% hematocrit level; enough steroids to approach but not exceed the 4:1 T/E ratio limit, etc. Floyd just overdid it one day and, because he won the stage, also got tested that day. Compared to the others, it's probably more fair to characterize this as bad luck. --Serge 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • While it is correct, what is strinking here is that Floyd Landis positive tests are directly linked to the Stage 17, which he won in the most extraordinary fashion. --213.41.133.220 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the issue a high level of testosterone (as reported in the mass media and summarized here), or is it a high ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone? Uucp 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The half life on testosterone is about every hour, if he had 11 to 1 a hour after the race at the end he would have to have 22 to 1. Since the race was about 4 hours he would have to have 88 to 1 testosterone at the start and since he probably was being watched the whole hour before the race he would have to have 186 to 1 ratio, which is impossible.
  • The half life of testosterone in the body is actually variable and ranges from 1-12 days.--Stephan Schulz 21:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The half-life of synthetic testosterone is more variable than that, and depends on the steroid being used. "For example, the half-life of free testosterone in the blood is only a few minutes (1), and from the site of injection it is well short of one hour." [6]. Perhaps Landis took a steroid that had a longer half-life than he realized, or was told it had. In any case, it doesn't make sense for an athlete to take a steroid with a multi-day half-life. --Serge 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And anyways the test showed that he had normal-low levels of testosterone meaning his epitestosterone had to be nothing almost....there is just no way. For someone to possibly have a ratio of 11:1 an hour after the race. He would have to be downing it in the middle of the race....IMPOSSIBLE --Jerluvsthecubs 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Does anyone know what test was performed to determine the testosterone levels, High Pressure Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry? a chemical color test? Gas Chromatography? Cappilary Electrophoresis? Fourier Transform Infra Red? --Tracy
  • The BBC article claims the latter, which makes more sense. A high level of testosterone doesn't necessarily indicate doping unless the level is really high, but an unnatural ratio of two types is more of a give-away. --Cyde↔Weys 15:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I dont believe it. You're right... everyone has different levels of hormones and HGH etc. I think this is just the french. they couldnt handle another American Winning. ~Gatkee
  • Seems like a lot of trouble for the French labs to go to in order to promote two Spaniards and a German on the podium, don't you think? Let's wait for the B-sample, but if it's as bad as the A-sample, resign yourself. --Uucp 15:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • let's keep it as noted in intial lede graph with short note indicating initial tests following 2006 tour until b test results are confirmed and reported. no reason for lengthy text, theories, explanations in opening graph. --IDD55 15:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm devastated, but in all honesty I think the results are true and we shouldn't cast a tone of too much doubt on the results. The way he came back in that mountain stage was just incredible, and now that it seems to be feuled by doping just makes it all seem worthless. --AdamBiswanger1 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot of tests come back positive and are later disregarded due to either b tests or legal drug history screenings analysis. you have to remember these guys are ALL taking a spectrum of legal and allowed pain killers, legal anti inflamatories and and legal steriods -- especially those with existing njuries. He has a known injury and would certainly have been given high doses of allowed steriods that may have caused this. I am not arguing for or against, but it is too early to say. the comeback AND the A test results could easily be the result of allowed drugs emliorating the effects of the hip injury. --IDD55 16:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The tour knew he was taking Cortisone which is a stimulant and they passed him off before he even went to win the whole thing. I find this whole thing a joke. But he's in the spotlight because he won the Tour de France while taking Cortisone. --ViriiK 18:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe someone should provide a link to the International Cycling Union's website?
  • Guys, this is the wiki for a man named Floyd Landis. I don't think 2/3 of the opening paragraph (top) should be dedicated to this doping scandal thing. One sentence is more than enough... that last sentence should be taken out, but I don't want to flat out take it out and have someone put it right back in, or get yelled at like I'm an idiot.
  • I agree, the article should leave the doping allegation to that paragraph and maybe just mention it in the first paragraph. If he fails the doping test then maybe it should be given more prominence in the first paragraph because I agree he will be remembered as the first tour de france winner to be stripped of the title for doping.
  • Someone has tried to slip this in as the team's statement, so I've removed it. Phonak have delibrately not giving further details. --Aioth 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I just heard on Pardon the Interruption (ESPN talk show) that Landis' T/E ratio was 11:1, likely due to low epi levels rather than high testosterone levels, possibly as a result of the cortisone treatments. I can't find a second source or a source on the web, though.--67.176.151.253 22:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how people are classifying this, but Landis himself doesn't call it a "failed doping test". It just has shown an abnormally high level of testosterone, so I'm not sure how that should be written. Cheesehead Fan 02:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I believe that the correct way of terming the current situation is not that he tested positive, but rather that failed to test negative. I know this might seem to be a matter of mere semantics, but given the information available at this point, i think it's an important distinction. Also, though the assumption is that an "unusual level" indicates elevated levels of testosterone, and this is how it seems to be being reported everywhere, it may be that his levels were actually low. There's a pretty good assessment of what is actually known, and not known, at this point on bicycling.com's site. Ultranaut 17:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "He didn't test positive, he failed to test negative", sorry to make fun of that but... that's the best! This is a clear example of "systematic bias" that should be corrected. Herve661 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • First off, my point was that at this time nobody has enough information to come to any conclusions one way or the other and that any attempts to either condemn or defend him are premature at this point. And as i said, testing positive vs. failing to test negative is perhaps a fine distinction, but again at this point i think it's an important one -- you're free to feel differently. As far as I'm concerned, I'm inclined to be sympathetic toward him, but if it comes out that he was in fact doping, then I think he should suffer the consequences, American or not.
  • And what exactly is it that is supposed to be corrected in your eyes? My point was presented in the context of the discussion, not as part of the article's content. Maybe you mean that my point of view needs "correction"? Please let me know so that I can take the necessary measures. Ultranaut 01:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What we 'usually' say in situations like this is that the A test was positive, but the B test was negative (if it ends up being that). Not that "he failed to test negative".--Per Abrahamsen 20:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Added sentence and reference to an account of Landis' post-Stage-17 behavior. Anyone know what "expletive" that Landis yelled "at the top of his lungs" and that the NYT reporter found unfit to write? [7] Also, in case anyone buys the defense that it doesn't make sense for Landis to take testosterone because there is no short-term benefit, here is one description: "I have injected myself with testosterone in doing research, and I can tell you from personal experience that within hours, you feel a profound psychological change, a sense of well-being, aggression and energy."[8] --Brian Hill 05:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Testosterone/Epitestosterone level

  • Alright there's some stuff TV told me when I happened to tune in on an interview: The regular T/E ratio is exactly 1:1, and varies very little. In exceptional occasions, due to natural causes, the rate can elevate to up to 2:1. The limit for doping is the (very generous) figure of 4:1. Landis' figure was 11:1 ... At this time, no cyclist sports representatives really doubt he would have cheated. A former professional cyclist suggested that pretty much every last one of the cyclists would be doped to the gills, (a statement for which he has received death threats) otherwise they simply don't have a chance against the other dopers. 84.75.130.173 18:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, that could also be sour apples, or his own justification for doping. To add this to the article, though, we actually need sources. 69.59.212.172 18:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Same as Kelly Guest pointing at the supplement companies for spiking his protein (they're too cheap to do that, believe me), or the various conspiracy theories around Ben Johnson. It's the "who, me??" game; I think there's more to this story than anything Landis did deliberately, and I still think steroid-induced ester levels would be way higher than even 10:1Skookum1 19:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You may think that, but that doesn't make it right. This link is in German, but you will well be able to understand the graphs and the numbers and list yourself as de-2 anyway. The bottommost figure contrasts a typical negative example with a typical positive example. The positive example has a ratio of 14.5:1. This is a page at the biochemistry institute at the German Sports University in Cologne. The Institute is an IOC approve lab for doping analytics. --OliverH 20:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright, it may be useful to understand how testosterone is applied (this is also something the TV told me). You use a hormonal patch, its not a syringe, its a patch, and you put that one on your scrotum (where its the most effective). Now the idea is, you only use that patch for two hours - that way your T:E level is elevated, but not so high that you actually get caught.
  • Now, Landis said he got drunk the day before. That may mean, he applied the patch, got drunk, and forgot to take off the patch before he went to bed. Essentially, he fucked up: The patch worked for the entire night and the next day, his T:E level was way above the limit that disqualifies him. Other than that, he's just lying. The interviewed cyclist didn't say that this may have been due to the beer, just a more general "he fucked up and kept the patch on for too long" 84.75.130.173 22:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Exogenous testosterone

  • www.cyclingnews.com is reporting that the testosterone found in Landis' A sample was exogenous, meaning that it came from outside the body. Scroll down. I have to go right now, but I just wanted to throw it out there to see if you all think it is legitimate enough for mention in the article. --AdamBiswanger1 01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice find. It's strange the way these results (e.g. the specific testosterone/epitestosterone ratio of 11-1 and now this claim of exogenousness) leak out piecemeal. Anyway, Landis' attorney is quoted disputing the reliability of IRMS, but does not dispute the result itself, so that is implicit but clear confirmation that this is indeed the lab's result. --Brian Hill 06:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't leak out peacemeal. Both data were reported simultaneously by German media. --OliverH 07:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The german article which initially leaked this would be quite useful, have you got a link? --Aioth 08:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the first reports where by German public television ARD which was then cited in other media. However, as for exogenous testosterone, at the time they only reported that there were "indications" beyond the unusual ratio that the testosterone was artificial. Apparently, this has now been confirmed by others digging a bit deeper. Unfortunately, due to a new cycling event in Germany currently going on, the links from ARD's Tour de France site are messed up, i.e. they have teaser abstracts, but if you click on the links to read more, you get to articles about the new event. Plus the ARD is a conglomerate of several regional broadcasting stations which all have additional individual websites... To get the chronology correct, first, it became public that an athlete -without name- had suspicious levels. Then, several media outlets linked that to Landis, including a danish and a dutch newspaper. ARD, too, called several national associations who stated they had not been notified -but it was known that the association responsible for the cyclist had been notifed, so the noose tightened around Landis. Not the least, because he cancelled other races and neither he, nor anyone from Phonak, was available for comment. Then, Phonak confirmed that it was indeed Landis and pretty much simultaneously, the values were leaked by someone from the Phonak or Landis entourage to ARD. Here is an article by Der Spiegel in German right after the Phonak/Landis press conference. Here is an earlier one, citing the dutch and danish papers. Here is an article by the Netzeitung stating that Landis and Klöden cancelled their participation in a cycling event in Hamburg. --OliverH 10:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hypothyroidism

  • Thyroid hormone levels are not "notoriously unstable" if the patient is taking the correct dose consistently. --Cybergoth 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Patients taking medication for hypothyroidism are typically tested only once a year, maybe twice early on. Then, for 6 or 12 months they take a fixed dosage regardless of what their body needs each particular day. A person with a normally operating thyroid gland has a feedback system that naturally and continually adjusts to maintain stability that a medicated person does not have (the only feedback is every 6 or 12 months). While medication can maintain stable levels of certain hormone levels (in particular, the ones the medication contains), there is no continual feedback mechanism to maintain stability in all related hormone and protein levels. This is why even people on proper medication for hypothyroidism do not have the stable hormone levels of someone whose body naturally maintains the stability on an as-needed continual basis. --Serge 20:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That may be so for the average patient. However, I would presume that an elite athelete would have their TSH level checked more frequently. Typically, the TSH level equilibrates 4-6 weeks after an adjustment in the dose of levothyroxine. --Cybergoth 17:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Cortisone

  • Cortisone is a steroid, and Landis was using cortisone with approval for his hip ailment, so could this use of steroids also have contributed to raised testosterone levels? I'm guessing not, because I haven't heard anyone suggest it, but does anyone understand it a little more? Or can we explain it in the article, because to the non-expert, you have earlier suggestions that higher levels suggest steroid use, but that he was approved to use a type of steroid... --Brendanfox 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If it were the cortisone, he would have failed a number of other tests that were taken throughout the tour. --Aioth 06:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Impact of alcohol consumption on the T/E-level

  • I recently heard that after his bad day in the Alps, Floyd said something like "I'm going to get a beer", and apparently he did. Now read this, which states that ethanol can significantly increast the T/E ratio. I'm not necessarily saying it has any weight to it, or that it's the cause of Floyd's positive test, but I'm just putting it out there. AdamBiswanger1 02:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • After his stage win, he said (in response to a question as to what gave him the edge) "...maybe it was the beer I had last night." AdamBiswanger1 02:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 2g per kg body weight as cited in the publication would mean that Landis had to have consumed about 130g of alcohol. This isn't "a" beer, but an entire night in the pub. I doubt his team would have tolerated that kind of drinking. Also, the value reported by german public tv suggests almost triple the normal ratio. Added to that, there reportedly are test results indicating that the testosterone was added from the outside, not produced by Landis' body, but we'll see about that. It most definitely wasn't "the beer I had last night". --OliverH 12:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss. He said that he had a beer and "some Jack Daniels", and simply because the amount consumed by Landis does not match the amount mentioned in the study does not therefore invalidate the argument. Also, we have no way of knowing what the actual ratio is at this time, and any speculation by German public TV is as valuable as my own. Landis himself does not know. AdamBiswanger1 20:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that the amount consumed by Landis is nowhere near the amount in the study which was barely capable of lifting the ratio above 2 doesn't invalidate the argument? Sorry, but your ideas of physiology are somewhat strange. Your suggestion that Landis doesn't know what his actual ratio was is quite unusual, since I doubt that he wouldn't have been given the precise results of the test. The "speculation" supposedly comes from Phonak or Landis' direct entourage and considered credible enough by plenty of other news sites to quote it. --OliverH 20:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to say I'm never mistaken, because I often am, but I am fairly sure that Landis has not recieved information as to the actual T/E ratio (as of 7/29). Now, in that he has a thyroid issue and several other conditions and exogenous factors that may have affected his T/E ratio, I would propose that his alcohol very well could have contributed to the irregularity, though it is probably not the sole cause.
  • I have no particular affinity for this theory, but I think that given the evidence we have, there is no reason to discount it as a possible factor in at least part of the reason for the high reading. AdamBiswanger1 21:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • According to ESPN, Landis received a fax with the test results on wednesday. The amount of alcohol used in the above study translates to about 10 glasses of alcoholic beverages, give or take, depending on the strength of the beverage and the size of the glass, but usually, lighter drinks are also consumed in larger volumes. Team manager and doctors would have dragged Landis kicking and screaming out of the pub long before that. --OliverH 21:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In the study, the max testosterone increase was 1.9 times (90%), the mean 45%. Landis is nearly 3 times above the upper limit (and 11 times above the normal values). So, maybe, make it 30 to 110 glasses. --213.41.133.220 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Was it the beer? - more refs...

  • The BBC reports on the three reasons Landis gave as scientifically dubious: He then listed three (scientifically dubious) reasons why his testosterone levels might have been out of whack after his yellow-jersey winning efforts in stage 17.[9] Cycling commentator Phil Ligget has said:"He would have been tested probably two or three times before this particular test and they've obviously been declared negative. ... Now that would indicate whatever it is he would have taken on this particular day, I suspect. ... But why go out and win the day's racing when that's an automatic test and testosterone is very easily discovered? It would be like putting your head into a noose. I think it is very important that any inclusion in the article on the doping be well-referenced. The issue as to whether Landis knew or not seems to be reasonably well-referenced that Landis was notified by fax. [10] It seems likely that the fax would have included the actual test result. The best analysis I have yet read of "Was it the Beer?" is at cyclingnews.com --A Y Arktos\talk 22:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that even in the study detailing the high variance of ratios in swedish atheletes, the one case with a ratio of 10.5 is still considered a clear case of testosterone doping. --OliverH 23:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Question? if he ingested this synthetic testosterone, how long does it stay in your system? long enough to show up in the next test at the next stage? JoeG 11:06 8.15.06

Current status: Ongoing discussions

Second test results: positive

  • Do we know when to expect results from the second test? I'd like to know more details about the second test. --geekyßroad. meow? 23:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The New York Times states the test to discover high levels of testosterone is two-pronged and labor-intensive. The first part, to see if there is a high t/e ratio, can take anywhere from 8 to 12 hours, he said. The second part, to see whether that high ratio comes naturally or from an external source, is also lengthy[11] Here is a ref that he will know the result by Monday night [12]--A Y Arktos\talk 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Of couse it is now widely reported as being Saturday. Landis was apparently not over-eager to see the results from the B sample--A Y Arktos\talk 09:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Disciplinary proceedings...

CNN SI sports sweb now says he is stripped of the Tour title, following the damning isotope analysis results. Hearing this, many can't believe in the honesty of Mr. L A's seven titles any more. USA has become the 21st century shame of sports in the same way the communist East Germany was in the 1980's, with government-backed doping programmes. I balco at this. 195.70.32.136 16:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what anyone says, he has not been stripped of the Tour title (yet). As for what people can or can't believe, it simply isn't relevant. This page is for improving the article; it is not a blog. -- Jibal 07:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion. But one thing's for sure - it doesn't belong here!--Folksong 19:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, and no surprise, the B sample reproduced the results of the A sample: [13] --OliverH 09:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Read also this article [14] from New York Times; most interesting parts: "The sample also tested positive for traces of synthetic testosterone, according to a person at the International Cycling Union with knowledge of the results, Landis’s personal doctor and two of Landis’s lawyers." --Leclerq 10:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can equate this with gazing into a crystal ball. The Tour officials have already stated that they no longer consider him the winner. Yes, the decision to strip him of his title needs to be ratified by the Cycling Union, but this is merely a formality. Barring some miraculous development, which refutes every single piece of evidence proffered against Landis, and every urine test conducted thus far, I don't see how Oscar Pereiro is not awarded the Tour De France title sometime in the immediate future. Asserting that Pereiro will likely be the new title-holder is no more speculative than claiming that the winner of a U.S. presidential race will become the next POTUS. Yes, the electoral votes have to be unsealed, and he is only President-Elect until he is inaugurated, but that doesn't change the fact that he is the presumptive President of the United States. --Ruthfulbarbarity 21:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

None of that is responsive to my statement that claims that the title has been stripped or automatically will be stripped are crystal ball gazing -- his title has not been stripped, and won't be until the end of an appeals process that will take several months (unless Landis admits to doping). Yes, the Tour officials don't consider him the winner but, as the article correctly states, their views aren't determinative. The decision to strip the title is not "merely a formality", it is a required element of due process which includes offering evidence and making arguments and appeals; sometimes the outcome is not to strip a title, and to assume it will be is crystal ball gazing. Talk about "barring some miraculous development" is crystal ball gazing -- developments happen in the future, and the article is about the status today. If and when Pereiro is awarded the title, the appropriate WP articles will be changed to reflect that fact. Getting ahead of the facts is crystal ball gazing. And your comment about the U.S. presidential race is ironic, since asserting while the SCOTUS was hearing Bush v. Gore that George Bush would likely be the next POTUS certainly would have been speculative, regardless of the fact that it was indeed likely. Pereiro is not the presumptive winner of the TdF; not yet. And if Pereiro is given the title, that will be a fact about him, not about Floyd Landis who, lest we forget, is the subject of this article. -- Jibal 04:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe I made reference to the 2000 presidential election specifically, or the post-election litigation that marred it, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you would bring it up.
Perhaps the analogy was a bit inapt, since there are a few more bureaucratic hurdles that need to be overcome before this bicyclist is officially stripped of his title.
I wasn't requesting that something that hasn't yet transpired be inserted into this article.
I was merely trying to explain why I think it isn't baseless speculation to suggest that Landis will-eventually-be stripped of his title.
If the disciplinary proceedings initiated by USA Cycling and the International Cycling Union reach that decision they will merely be arriving at a conclusion that almost everyone-including his fellow teammates on Phonak-have already drawn.
Namely, that his tentative victory is due to performance-enhancing drugs, not some superhuman burst of energy that he suddenly discovered in Stage 17 of the Tour de France. --Ruthfulbarbarity 05:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Since no one ever claimed that it's "baseless speculation to suggest that Landis will-eventually-be stripped of his title", you're arguing against a strawman; the policy about crystal balls pertains only to the contents of articles. And "some superhuman burst of energy" is also a strawman; no one here or anyone else has claimed that, before or after the test results. Please keep in mind that the talk page is for improving the article, which as far as I can see none of your comments here apply to. -- Jibal 05:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. The reason that I brought up the 2000 election is because my analogy is apt; as I said, your mention of the POTUS was ironic, precisely because there was an apt analogy to the current situation involving a POTUS. There was little doubt among informed observers that Bush would eventually take the office, but it would have been speculative to say so in a Wikipedia article. --Jibal 05:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Your analogy is immaterial to this discussion.
I was merely making a very generic argument based upon on our electoral process-and how it unfolds after a presidential election has been decided-to illustrate my point. Namely, that there are procedures that need to be scrupulously adhered to before someone officially becomes President. That does not mean that the person in question won't become President after those procedures are followed. In this case, Landis is going to be stripped of the title, and all of the debate specultating on what would occur if he isn't stripped of the title seems to be of little value. --Ruthfulbarbarity 19:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You said you were puzzled by my reference to the 2000 election, and for your benefit I explained why I included it; whether you consider it material is immaterial. What is material is that the purpose of this page is to discuss how to improve the article, and my comments about crystal ball gazing were made strictly within that context (although it's hard to tell because of the poor refactoring that this page has undergone recently). -- Jibal 07:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Explanations "A Mistake"

  • Landis's argument is now that the testing agency has an "agenda" of some sort against him and that possibly his samples were tampered with. Sources indicate that the tests following the Day 17 test were all normal, which seem to support his conspiracy theory. The 11 to 1 ratio is so high that it seems unlikely (to me) that his subsequent samples would have dropped back below the 4 to 1 ratio by the following day (I'm no expert on this). I have been looking for news articles that might present this argument but have found nothing. You should at least be able to observe a falling trend in his testosterone to epitestosterone levels if this was a real instance of doping, wouldn't you? --Sapoguapo 23:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are you saying that's Landis's argument when it's an argument that Landis has never made? According to the reports that you're responding to, he "has changed his defense strategy to say he cannot explain the test results". Please either substantiate your claim or retract it. -- Jibal 07:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
German media, too, reports that Landis is assuming some sort of conspiracy. --OliverH 08:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "You'll see that they clearly broke the rules and their excuse was pathetic. The only explanation I can come up with is that there is some agenda here." Landis, as reported by [15]. --213.41.133.220 13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The "agenda" theory doesn't work quite well, since the laboratory performs blinded tests (doesn't know who it is testing, for "A" samples). For "B" samples, the athlete can be present to oversee the whole procedure, starting from the unsealing of the sample. Alternatively, secretly injecting testosterone to Landis makes very little sense, since no one could predict Landis's victory in stage 17, hence any set-up would have to be made *after* he arrived. As for why he tested positive only once, see [16] "One potentially plausible explanation offered by those familiar with doping practices is Landis, despite his professions of innocence, was using testosterone over the long term but either masking it or diluting it to avoid detection. That reasoning holds that the positive owed to making a mistake with the doping program one day." --213.41.133.220 03:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There isn't much that's less useful that a "potentially plausible" explanation. That certainly isn't anything that should make it into the article, which is what the discussion on this page is supposed to be about. -- Jibal 07:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, but then what would you do with Landis Defense, which now has been changed to the "Ben Johnson's defense" ("there had been a conspiracy, ect..."), and is actually a "much-less-than-potentially plausible" explanation. [17] documents his claim that "the people at the laboratory are not objective about this". --213.41.133.220 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, this page is for discussing improving the content of the article, not for airing opinions as to how plausible people's explanations are. -- Jibal 03:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The only online snippets I've found are brief summaries of his appearance on "Good Morning America," where he evidently implied that the International Cycling Union might have conspired to prevent another American rider from winning the tour.
  • And that he intends to prove his innocence, without explaining precisely how he's going to go about it. --Ruthfulbarbarity 23:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"...the laboratory shuts for the holidays at the end of the week."

What multi-week holiday starts on August 5th? Burkina Faso apparently has its independance day on that day, but for some reason, I doubt any lab in France would take multiple weeks off to observe that. I've also looked several days before and after August 5th and haven't found any multi-week holidays that the Laboratory Châtenay-Malabry would likely observe. --TerraFrost 23:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know about this particular case, but July and August are typical French vacation months, and much of the country closes down while people go to the sea and mountains. Most people in Western Europe have more vacation than Americans (typically at least 4 weeks per year, often 6), and the French seem to take theirs all at the same time. Many businesses do indeed close down for some time. --Stephan Schulz 23:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Much of France takes off the month of August. It is not tied to any particular national holiday. This is good to remember if you --plan to invade.Uucp 23:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. I guess my being an American would be why I didn't know, heh. Anyway, thanks for the explanations! :) --TerraFrost 23:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing early august is just the time when the laboratory's staff all take a vacation. It's not a state holiday I think. But yeah, why would one go on vacation in winter? --Sloane 04:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • One person going on vacation at any given time is one thing - everyone going on vacation at the same time is - from I guess the perspective of a US-citizen - rather unusual. Atleast for businesses that don't practice nepotism (eg. small family-run businesses) TerraFrost 06:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's unusual in the U.S. but not in Europe; citizenship isn't relevant. Also, "nepotism" is "generally used in a derogatory sense", and doesn't apply to a small family-run business any more than it applies to leaving one's wealth to one's relatives. -- Jibal 07:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't intend to be derogatory and apologize for that. I made that particular comment because the only places that I do see closed for months at a time in the US are family run restraunts, gift shops, or whatever. Is there a non-derogatory word that means the same thing as nepotism? I can't think of any, off hand... :\ --TerraFrost 08:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with "family-run business"? Nepotism is the practice of unfairly preferring your relations with respect to jobs, deals, and positions. I don't think this describes what you have in mind very well. --Stephan Schulz 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually small businesses throughout France close for an extended period of time during either July or August.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by --71.111.200.58 (talk • contribs) .

It is not uncommon of French public establishments (this lab is a public administrative establishment) or companies that do not have to receive the public to shut down during August. It may be easier from a management point of view to have everybody go at the same time (and thus reduce fixed costs) than maintain it half-open (and incur the fixed costs). David.Monniaux 08:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Archived sections

Sections archived since obsolete, outdated or not on-topic:

If you think these edits are inappropriate, feel free to reincorporate the sections combed out or drop a short note to do me so. Otherwise, I'd be pleased if you try to help to keep this talk page as concise as possible. Thanks, fbahr. August 7, 2006.

The archival is fine with me, but some of your edits have produced breakage by changing indentation levels and moving responses away from what they were responding to. I think your time and energy would be better spent improving articles rather than talk pages. -- Jibal 03:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Staying on topic

As per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How to use article talk pages, specifically Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues, I have removed comments that breach WP:Not. We don't need to hear individual editor's views on whether or not Landis is a cheat or how good looking (or otherwise) he is. There are other places on the internet for such discussions.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And this includes original research debating the merits (or lack thereof) of the arguments and evidence. If you are suggesting the inclusion of verifiable and sourced information from reliable sources, you are welcome to do so but if you are using information from journals (or whatever) to try and prove or disprove the allegations against Landis then similarly, there are better places for such discussions. You might want to also read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Nil Einne 16:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Details of Landis's family

I find the details of a recent death in the family of no relevance to Landis's public profile. I note that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy supports the view firstly Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. Although it is allowed that If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article, my contention is that this incident is neither notable nor relevant to Landis's public persona. Is there a link or is this merely a matter of private grief regarding an effectively non-public figure? Why is it notable to be included in this article.--Arktos talk 07:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of respect for the family, I really don't want to spell out why this story is notable. I would hope it's obvious. The section is sourced with three references. Here are 246 links to the story. Let me put it this way: if it's not notable, why is it getting so much coverage? --Serge 08:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
246 links is a lot! Enough said--Arktos talk 08:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless the relevance is apparent from our article the text needs to be removed. By the way, the 246 link is broken. Happily ever after 09:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Notability of an incident indirectly related to the subject of the page does not come into the Biographies of living persons policy. What does come in is putting irrelevant private information into biographies. Your admition that spelling something out is not easy to do for respect of the family shows precisely why the issue should not be included on the page. Ansell 10:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the skeptics on this one. Unless compelling evidence is presented that Landis's professional turmoil provoked the suicide, it isn't relevant.Uucp 12:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Folks, the WP:Notability guidelines are quite clear. Please review them. There is no basis for requiring that "compelling evidence is presented that Landis's professional turmoil provoked the suicide" for this information to be included here. Removing this information because it offends our personal sensibilities is in violation of WP:NPOV. If it's notable for every general and sports news source worldwide, it is notable for us. Go to news.google.com, search for "Floyd Landis", and you will find mostly articles about this event. It's clearly relevant and notable. --Serge 01:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I object to your reference to the Notability essay as the basis for definitive "guidelines" on the issue. Also, the policy trumps the guidelines which are only intended to decide between keep and delete of whole articles. How is this clearly relevant to his article in a way that is not offensive given the Biographies of Living persons policy? Ansell 01:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Now up to 336 links with perhaps a more stable google news link. As per above and first reversion of the content from the article a few days ago, I was not comfortable with this inclusion. I still am not comfortable, but understand Serge's arguments and cannot think of a meaningful rebuttal.--Arktos talk 01:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought we already settled the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy policy issue above. This incident clearly qualifies...
If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
This is an incident that is clearly notable, relevant and well-documented. Again, it is sufficently notable and relevant to be covered by just about every general and sports news service you can cite. It certainly passes the "google test". And the reason it was notable and relevant is because he was the father-in-law and close personal friend of the subject of this article, and chose to do this at this tumultuous time for his friend. The fact that Landis is going through extraordinary professional turmoil at this time is what makes the suicide of someone so close to him notable and relevant. Again, I know and respect that it's "yucky" to cover here, but there is no question that it is notable, relevant and well-documented, which is why it got the coverage that it got. --Serge 01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I totally disagree. It may be notable and well-documented, but why is it relevant? Uucp 02:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The extent of media coverage does not answer the ethical problem that makes the Biographies policy necessary. The media do not have specific ethical pointers on how to treat people, we do. What is the specific reason why the suicide of a family member is relevant to this persons page? Ansell 03:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
When someone's close and personal friend and family member commits suicide as the someone is going through an extraordinary turmoil, the (coincidental?) timing makes it relevant. --Serge 04:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The timing makes it mordantly interesting, but why is it relevant? How does it help us understand the story of Floyd Landis in any way? This is not the death of a parent growing up, nor does it seem to have provoked any notable response by Floyd. It's just grusome trivia. Uucp 10:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It's relevant because the timing raises questions. On August 15th, Landis posted a statement on his website, which include this sentence:
Most of all, I understand that this situation impacts families and friends other than my own.
Later the same day, his close friend and father-in-law, David Witt, took his own life.
This is not the suicide of a father-in-law whose life was not very personally connected with Landis'. This is a close friend - the two guys were best men at each other's weddings. They met through a mutual cycling coach. David Witt is responsible for getting Landis to switch from mountain biking to road bike racing. He introduced him to his future wife. Witt's restaurant is decorated with Landis memorabilia. Witt went to France to celebrate Landis' winning of the Tour. Yet, despite all that, or perhaps because of it, he committed suicide while his best friend and son-in-law is battling an extraordinary situation where he needs help and support. The questions raised include:
  1. Whatever personal problems one may be having, if he believed a close personal friend's extraordinary turmoil stemmed from being wrongly accused, or framed, wouldn't he find purpose in being with the friend through the turmoil?
  2. If someone is having some personal problems, is deep disappointment in someone close to him enough to take him over the edge?
  3. If Floyd did dope - and the evidence strongly suggests that he did - could Witt have been involved? And if he was, could the guilt of being involved be a factor in his decision to take his own life?
I know these are unfortunate and distasteful questions to ask, but they are reasonable, given their close relationship and the coincidental timing. By not disclosing information about the relationship and suicide in the article, we are inhibiting the reader from being able to ask these types of pertinent questions. That's what makes it relevant. --Serge 18:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that the following was published on July 29, two weeks prior to the David Witt suicide:
The Witts are upset by allegations that surfaced Thursday suggesting that Landis may have used performance-enhancing substances (which he denies). Rose gives such talk no credibility, “knowing his character and the kind of athlete he is.” This was his dream, she says, and he wouldn't jeopardize it.
David calls Landis a tremendous athlete who is capable of having an outstanding comeback performance. He has seen such feats first-hand and knows Landis well. “He was my roommate. I was his best man at his wedding, and he was my best man at my wedding. He isn't the type who would do this type of thing.”
Landis has a special gift. His physical endurance is “way off the charts,” David says. How many other people could cover 900 miles in one week of training?
“We just want to get through this mess.”[18]
--Serge 19:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Floyd_Landis/Archive_1&oldid=1136731831"