John,
Did you see yourself on TV during the Landis discussion at the Brooklyn Brewery. That was you with the baseball cap wasn't it?
Landis discussion at the Brooklyn Brewery
Sat, 02/24/2007 - 7:04am
Sat, 02/24/2007 - 7:05am
#1
Herb;
I heard about it but I did not see the show. Paul Spraos is also in it. Ron is going to burn-it on a DVD for us.
Sat, 02/24/2007 - 7:08am
#2
Now I see why John and Paul were in the footage: Later on Paul asks his question to Floyd whether he can look him in the eye and declare his innocence. And just as Paul had predicted, it was good press for Floyd.
The fact that both Paul and John were framed together leads me to believe that the person shooting the video was following the dialogue but had no idea what was to be edited in or out. As both Paul and John had asked stunning questions, framing them together made sense.
Sat, 02/24/2007 - 7:10am
#3
Floyd Landis Segment on VS for Stage 1 of Tour of CA
Thanks to Hank, I now understand why the 2 of them were framed together as they were. The way the piece was edited, the question - unattributed, as the speaker was not shown at the time - asked by Paul came after the quick shot of John and Paul. Unfortunately, they chose not to broadcast John's question.
PS - when you watch the video, note Floyd's facial expressions as Paul's question is unfolding.
Sat, 02/24/2007 - 7:13am
#4
Interesting that you mention Floyd's expression Ron. Steve Weiss was sitting right next to these 2 and had mentioned that Floyd had looked uneasy at John's question. His expression to Paul's question looked like a double take.
Dire situtations require hard questions. The public reacts as much to emotion as to rationality.
Sat, 02/24/2007 - 8:13am
#5
Landis discussion at the Brooklyn Brewery
How would you feel if you were falsely accused and then every self-important jerk from Matt Lauer (NBC) to everyone who has ever ridden a bike asked you to look them in the eye and say you're innocent. Landis isn't accountable to any of you. This is between him and the UCI. If you have any experience with the UCI, you will pity him.
Sat, 02/24/2007 - 8:26am
#6
AMEN
Sat, 02/24/2007 - 1:40pm
#7
falsely accused
So what you are saying is that you have evidence that absolutely, positively exonerates Landis above all doubt and reasonable suspicion of the scientific test results he had failed. Those eyes he needs to look squarely at (e.g. fans) are the same ones that afford him the opportunity to earn a living riding a bicycle. I think most would agree with me, the burden of proof lies squarely on Landis, not the other way around as you suggest.
Sat, 02/24/2007 - 1:59pm
#8
Falsely Accused?
Both his A and B samples failed a drug test. I do not possess the time nor the expertise to sift though the substantial quantity of documentation made public by Floyd's defense team to determine whether his defense is valid. I trust that the USCF, the governing body is this case, will uncover the truth.
As a professional athlete Floyd is accountable to his team, his sponsor and his fans and by going public with your defense, hard questions must be expected. As a fan, I truly hope Floyd is innocent. Unfortunately, some of the tactics taken by his defense lead me to believe he did in fact use exogenous testosterone.
From the start, this case was poorly handled by all parties -- let's hope that the ASO, UCI, WADA and USCF can put their collective egos aside and reform a system that is doing the sport more harm than good.
Sat, 02/24/2007 - 2:57pm
#9
The duality I am put to deal with is that I like Floyd and feel the system is constucted to overburden him. Thus, I have contributed to his fund. On-the-other-hand, I am with John in noting gaps in credibility in his defense.
If you come up with easy answers to this problem you are either a deeper thinker than the rest of us, or you haven't done your homework.
