This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Floyd Landis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
saying landis doped is npov silliness. there are countless other articles of celebrities that do not start off with ' overshadowed by xyz personal failure', and even if they do, it is often the 'alleged personal failure'. this article really stands out, slamming the subject in the first sentence.
you guys are easier on hitler than you are on floyd landis. lets compare the first paragraphs. hitler was a 'leader of germany' and a 'decorated hero of wwi'. no mention that his 'leadership was overshadowed by killing tens of millions of people' until the third paragraph. floyd landis, though, gotta put that right out there, he was a drug user, even though its never been proven in a court of law. same thing with stalin, mao, and others probably too. not to mention the lesser criminals such as roman polanski, who raped a 13 year old girl.
the veracity of the wada and other 'courts' is less than certain, and so the articles on wikipedia should reflect this.
of coure, im not going to fight an 'edit war', because some little turd brain who is in with the wikipedia cabal will probably get me banned for trying to make this article npov. but come on pedia, hows about a little common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.3.120.152 ( talk) 14:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The laboratory that conducted the tests is the national anti-doping laboratory of France and is what is referred to in France as an EPA (public establishment of an administrative character). David.Monniaux 08:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The article currently references the Floyd official site, and the site of the team of which he is no longer a member.
At what point should it stop pointing to the Phonak team site (if ever)?
What other things might be appropriate in the external links section, perhaps from the references?
I'm running a blog about the doping allegations, which contains its own reference section for things related to the WADA process, testing, etc. Would it be appropriate to add those references, and/or a pointer to the blog? ( http://trustbut.blogspot.com)
Dbrower 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I am quite concerned that this page is being edited and maintained in the main by people connected with the Free Floyd Landis campaign.
There seems to be in the U.S. a head in the sand attitude to the current problems facing cycling especially when they affect US riders. It is well know why and how Landis doped, and tha he was being monitored for a long time by the UCI. The problem is that any debate regarding the topic is being bogged down in legalistic arguments about procedure and not based in any way on ethics.
So I would like to talk to people here about making sure that this page does not just become another arm of the Free Floyd campaign. If objectivity exists in this world, which is also debateable, at least an encyclopedia entry should be more than a promotional vehicle for people with vested interests, whether they be as friends of Floyd or as people with an interest in maiatining an image for commercial reasons of the purity of US riders. -- auskadi 09:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Golden Wattle maybe the etxt concerning the incredible comeback of Landis has been toned down a little. Incredible is the right word. Something that is hard to believe. That was my main beef. I think however the statement that he is the winner of the Tdf needs to be qualified. Also if one wants to go into all the silly defences, procedural or otherwise in such detail, maybe some of the allegations concerrning what actually happened should be given some space. There is a lot of conjecture concerning the Landis Perdiguero connection. Perdiguero is also associated with a long list of previous positives. And it is Perdi who was and is Floyds main advisor at phonak and since the positive test. If one is going to give so much space to the technical defences (ie those that say well yes there was testosterone, but you didnt follow the procedure correctly) then the facts of the situation regarding the Pedriguero Landis alliance, the way Landis reacted on that day, the sweat, the lack of liquids drunk, the anger at the finish line, all which point to testotserone use and possibly psuedoephedrine (which is now legal) or even, as Mercxk was an alleged advisor, amphetamine use. But the latter would be silly. Cyclists only use that nowadays for training in the winter. Tetosterone is the best bet as Perdi would well of known that any positive stands a good chance of being beaten on a technical defence. So givent hat the glory of Stage 17 has been toned down, maybe the positive should be mentioned directly in relation to that stage in the "race commentary" and maybe there should be a more wide rangiing discussion of the situation and not just a series of apparently pro floyd entrys about technical defences. -- auskadi 11:25, 02 October 2006 (UTC)
The only concern I would have on neutrality is the 'request to dismiss doping allegations' section which not only has info duplicated, it assumes that what the Landis people say is true and even has a very un-encyclopedic entry about how to download said information. Narson 12:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added information from the L.A. Times article going into more detail about the USADA ruling. I feel this is more accurate than simply saying the USADA didn't buy Landis' argument, since the panel did in fact agree that the lab work was flawed -- just not flawed enough to justify overturning the test results, given that USADA rules place the burden of proof on the accused. -- PhoenixVTam 18:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add a section about the novel ideas behind soliciting the Internet to help in his defense. I know his term for the legal strategy "The Wikipedia Defense" is not exactly accurate but it is certainly catchy. Plus, I think that this new type of legal research method could have profound affects on the legal community beyond the Floyd Landis saga. I tried to add a Wikipedia Defense article but it was deleted for notability reasons, and I hope it can be merged into the Floyd Landis article. Morscs5 20:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: "Landis has coined this strategy the "Wikipedia defense". I could not find a mention of "Wikipedia defense" by Landis in the reference given: Snow, Michael Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy, Wikipedia Signpost, October 16, 2006. Where exactly does Landis say "Wikipedia defense"? It looks like Michael Snow the founder of The Wikipedia Signpost coined the words Wikipeda defense. ^_^ -- Electric Eye ( talk) 02:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It is discussed and referred to as the 'wiki defense" in the latest (June 2007) issue of Bicycling magazine. "Floyd Landis is getting screwed, right?" is the cover story for this month. ~~
As a cycling fan with no particular axe to grind - except that at this point (December 2007) there has been due process, and Landis has been found guilty - I've added some text to the Stage 17 summary (the gist being that the result was incredible, and is itself prima facie evidence of drug use). I've also added some text to clarify - for readers who don't know much about pro cycling/sports - that tearful declarations of innocence are the rule, rather than the exception, amongst those with positive drug tests. Cerireid ( talk) 15:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerireid ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I just deleted part of one sentence. (I forgot to log in before doing so.) It is crudely biased to assert that the documents Landis published in his defense are science based. The inclusion of the phrase "fact based" represents a separate flaw. The deleted phrase "fact based science" is in fact ambiguous because "fact based" could be interpreted as either restrictive or nonrestrictive. But the latter interpretation is highly unlikely. The restrictive interpretation means the writer believes there exists science which is not fact based, a ridiculous concept. Science is by definition fact based. Lastly, the prose of the deleted passage was awkward and perhaps even ungrammatical, particularly in the use of "in". Hurmata 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I have an issue with this assertion. Dr. Kurt Moosberger, the doctor of Jörg Jaksche and other cyclists said in an interview with the German news service dpa during the 2006 Tour de France that testosterone patches are used during stage races to aid recovery. Jones, Jeff (Ed.), "Jaksche's doctor: drug use common", Cyclingnews, 2006-7-7
The retired rider Jesus Manzano, who was a whistleblower regarding doping in the former spanish team Kelme and regarding the Operation Puerto doctor Eufemiano Fuentes, wrote in the Spanish paper AS July 30, 2006 that testosterone is used for short term recovery during Tours. He wrote that it provides a rider extra force and a feeling of euphoria. He also outlined the use of testosterone patches, and added suppositories to the methods used during a stage race. [ http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/10613.0.html Hood, Andrew "Manzano: ‘Testosterone effects almost immediate'", Velo News 2006-7-30]
The experts I have seen quoted doubting the effectiveness for testosterone for short term recovery are not experts in cycling or it's doping practices.
In addition both footnotes in the first paragraph are dead links, to pages no longer available.
The second paragraph in this section deals with statistical issues which are not pertinent to the header. I suggest that this paragraph be moved.
And I suggest that the subheader "Uncertainty as to the efficacy of testosterone as a doping substance" be changed to "Evidence of testosterone use for short term recovery" or that the entire subtopic be discarded
Billyjay 13:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why this section even exists in the article. This information belongs more in an article about testosterone. 68.227.223.211 00:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Greg, July 8th,2007
As Uucp mentioned in an edit summary, the biography section needs a fair bit of re-writing. I think best to concentrate on this once the hearing is over? Severo T C 14:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that the most persistent editors of this entry are not objective in their regard for Landis. And the discussion about "pro landis" edits clearly proves that. I agree with severo, leave the rabid emotional spin until after the hearings are long over, go out spinning on your bike instead, and keep pretending that masking agents don't exist. 66.215.80.177 03:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)losgatos_dale
The negative point of view editorializing opening statement is utter crap, I changed it to "FL is an American Cyclist whose specialties were..." and got rid of "overshadowed by doping" nonsense. The biases of editors are so painfully obvious, and when there paragraph goes on to outline the suspension and loss of palmares, it is stupid to insist on redundancy in your text. Grow up! 198.118.127.182 ( talk) 05:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)losgatos_dale
Should the doping investigation/court case become its own article. IMHO there appears to be enough there to justify an article. I am unsure what the standards are for changing a large section of an article into its own article.
--
Ender8282 03:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I separate article would be better, but like Cogswobble said it would require somebody actually putting up their hand and do that. Mathmo Talk 02:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
can someone add this reference into article (I don't know how)
Positively False: The Real Story of How I Won the Tour de France by Landis,Mooney
ISBN-10: 1416950230
--
Billymac00 18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The link given at Footnote 65 (Tanner, Lindsey. "Urine test reveals elevated testosterone levels") at Yahoo Sports no longer exists. Does anyone have a source to support the statement, "However, the increase in testosterone after alcohol intake has also been described as unlikely to have a huge effect in males."?
That line comes immediately after one saying "Alcohol consumption has been shown to increase T/E ratios by roughly 40% in men". It doesn't make sense to say it's unlikely to have a huge effect in males after saying that it has been shown to have a 40% increase in men.
Also, the way the possible effect of alcohol consumption is dealt with in the text of the article ('Testing assumptions and confounding factors' section) gives the impression that there is conflicting evidence of equal weight on each side of this specific point. But I would generally expect the findings of research published in a peer-review journal, and available via Pubmed, to be a more reliable source than an article on Yahoo Sport, so I would like this to be clearer in the article's wording. However, perhaps this would depend on what sources the journalist has cited, if that article can be found. But if that is the case, then I'd like to see the primary sources cited directly on the wikipedia page.
So can anyone provide a source for the contention that alcohol intake doesn't affect E/T ratio? Amruk 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Should he still be listed as the 2006 TDF winner, have an asterix next to it or not listed at all? Ticklemygrits 09:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think i'll change it to disqualified, but I don't think I'll change the stage results. Someone else who nows more about it than me can change that if it's correct to do that. PS GO MANLY!!! Ticklemygrits 16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
At one point in history, Ruiz and Ben Johnson had won their respective races, too. The highest court of the sports world has now ruled against him, and Wikipedia respects that.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
He should not be listed as the winner (he IS NOT the winner), even with the stripped of title add on. It is deeply disrespectful to the actual winner of the tour, the spanaird who was robbed of his moment of glory by someone who cheated and made repeated public statements of innocence despite hard scientific evidence of guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.39.130 ( talk) 03:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think he should be listed as winner + stripped, with a link ~specifying Oscar Pereiro eventually got the title. Wedineinheck 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think there is enough contextual and chemical evidence that points to the fact that, despite the testing results, he is still only "alleged". Therefore, his win of the Tour de France should be listed in the Infobox and Major Results. If you want to put an "asterisk" comment under that, this would be fine.
There is no "hard evidence of guilt" - actually, the evidence is stronger for his innocence. One does not continue to make his case publicly for so long when one is guilty. Landis has a condition that can cause testosterone buildup. Additionally, as is shown later in the article, an overabundance of testosterone is not necessarily a boon to performance.
The inheritor of the title, ironically, also got into trouble this year, so he also must be under suspicion of doping last year as well, although he cannot be tested retroactively.-- 71.42.30.186 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey! It's alliteration! Seriously, folks -- I expected to find a balanced article giving useful background on Floyd Landis. Instead the 90% of the piece is about the doping scandal, and it's nearly all "Go Floyd!" It's okay to include sections about doubts, but this is POV, and I think it might need a rewrite. -- Rhombus 01:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
How would people feel about the removal of the section "Testing assumptions and confounding factors"? It's a synthesis of sources, presenting arguments which might have been bandied around internet discussions but weren't ultimately very prominent in the case itself (and aren't particularly relevant any more in light of the CIR results). I suggest removing it as part of the tidyup of the article. It has a single useful reference, the one backing up the initial appearance of the "alcohol defence", which can be used earlier in the article, but the rest of the alcohol argument is moot because Landis quickly retracted it. Comments? Thomjakobsen 17:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the reasons for innocence from the opening paragraph, there is enough of that in the article. I added information about his B samples from the 2006 Tour showing the presence of synthetic testosterone. I also removed the section about possible reasons for the high T/E ratio, none of those were put forward by Landis as a defense at his hearing. Billyjay 04:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't team leader be more appropriate than all rounder? Mathmo Talk 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I put the doping case into a new article, Floyd Landis doping case. The article was getting extremely lopsided towards his 2006 TDF. — Onomatopoeia ( talk) 18:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a mistake somewhere, the Tour of California is in February and the Battenkill is in April. Tstrobaugh ( talk) 19:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
there was an edit from 222.29.51.14 in which he insert the word "alleged" into a sentence making the sentence "a drug-control test demonstrated the alleged presence of a skewed testosterone/epitestosterone ratio during Stage 17". I have taken out the word "alleged" because i don't think it's right. According to my pocket dictionary "stated without proof" therefore the remark of "alleged" is innaccurate. Phil Nolte ( talk) 13:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I initially realized that with the warrant that was issued, Floyd Landis became a fugitive. I then tried to add him to the correct country-specific category only to find out that it did not exist. I then created it. Why was he removed? I was just stating the fact that he is a wanted man. Jesse Viviano ( talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok to add "and self-admitted liar and cheat" to the end of "Floyd Landis (born October 14, 1975) is an American cyclist"? EdX20 ( talk) 21:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
In the days after Landis was first accused of doping in 2006, his best friend and father-in-law committed suicide. There was speculation at the time about how the suicide was related to Landis' situation, and the issue of whether to include that information in this article was discussed here.
The objections to including it had to do with lack of relevance. Well, now Landis himself has talked about it in the interview with Ford at ESPN:
Q: As long as we're on super-emotional subjects, you mentioned David [Witt], and I guess you must feel somehow like he was affected by what you did. [Editor's note: Witt committed suicide in August 2006. He was Landis' father-in-law at the time. Landis told Ford that on one occasion, he asked Witt to stay in an apartment in the south of France to make sure his supply of refrigerated blood was secure.]
A: Yeah, of course he was. Because he was involved, and he helped. And I've got to believe that if things didn't happen the way they did, he'd still be alive. I'm not saying that's the reason he's dead, but without that, I don't see why he wouldn't still be here.
I think Witt's suicide, along with Landis' divorce from Witt's daughter, are very serious and relevant events in his life, and so should be covered in the article. Landis himself obviously thinks so. Thoughts? Comments? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not think the suicide belongs in his biography page. Just because he talked about it in an interview and might have "if only things were different" feelings about it, as all of us usually do, doesn't mean it belongs here. Floyd Landis is a public figure that has been interviewed over and over again. Everything about his personal life is not fair game for his Wikipedia biography page. It reeks of National Enquirer lowest common denominator stuff.
When you look at the length and detail in this section it is clear that it is a National Enquirer style implication that he bore some kind of direct responsibility for his death, not and indirect responsibility. It is wrong to infer that.
Am I correct in noting that the only mention of Floyd being married is in this section about the suicide? Am I right in loading that in this so-called biography it doesn't mention Floyd being married, who he married married, when he was married or when he was divorced or whether or not he has any children, and the only reference to a wife is in the section about a suicide?
Honestly, is this a biography of a living person or a hit job? Jackhammer111 ( talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I removed a few and tagged the section. I would probably remove the other entries and include them in the body of the article if appropriate. Thoughts? TIA -- Threeafterthree ( talk) 04:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Some nitwit removed my entry about Floyd's being referred to as a rat. All you have to do is google Floyd The Rat Landis or some combination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.118.37.136 ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Floyd Landis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
There was an article in The Atlantic this week titled "The Man Who Brought Down Lance Armstrong." I'm not very familiar with the references format in Wikipedia, so I won't try to add it myself. But here's the link in case anyone else wants to add it. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/05/lance-armstrong-floyd-landis/556868/ Omc ( talk) 00:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Just curious - why is the guy's racing weight, when he was super-doped and TdF-fit, still listed as if it's his current weight? Seems silly. Az x2 03:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Floyd Landis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
saying landis doped is npov silliness. there are countless other articles of celebrities that do not start off with ' overshadowed by xyz personal failure', and even if they do, it is often the 'alleged personal failure'. this article really stands out, slamming the subject in the first sentence.
you guys are easier on hitler than you are on floyd landis. lets compare the first paragraphs. hitler was a 'leader of germany' and a 'decorated hero of wwi'. no mention that his 'leadership was overshadowed by killing tens of millions of people' until the third paragraph. floyd landis, though, gotta put that right out there, he was a drug user, even though its never been proven in a court of law. same thing with stalin, mao, and others probably too. not to mention the lesser criminals such as roman polanski, who raped a 13 year old girl.
the veracity of the wada and other 'courts' is less than certain, and so the articles on wikipedia should reflect this.
of coure, im not going to fight an 'edit war', because some little turd brain who is in with the wikipedia cabal will probably get me banned for trying to make this article npov. but come on pedia, hows about a little common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.3.120.152 ( talk) 14:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The laboratory that conducted the tests is the national anti-doping laboratory of France and is what is referred to in France as an EPA (public establishment of an administrative character). David.Monniaux 08:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The article currently references the Floyd official site, and the site of the team of which he is no longer a member.
At what point should it stop pointing to the Phonak team site (if ever)?
What other things might be appropriate in the external links section, perhaps from the references?
I'm running a blog about the doping allegations, which contains its own reference section for things related to the WADA process, testing, etc. Would it be appropriate to add those references, and/or a pointer to the blog? ( http://trustbut.blogspot.com)
Dbrower 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I am quite concerned that this page is being edited and maintained in the main by people connected with the Free Floyd Landis campaign.
There seems to be in the U.S. a head in the sand attitude to the current problems facing cycling especially when they affect US riders. It is well know why and how Landis doped, and tha he was being monitored for a long time by the UCI. The problem is that any debate regarding the topic is being bogged down in legalistic arguments about procedure and not based in any way on ethics.
So I would like to talk to people here about making sure that this page does not just become another arm of the Free Floyd campaign. If objectivity exists in this world, which is also debateable, at least an encyclopedia entry should be more than a promotional vehicle for people with vested interests, whether they be as friends of Floyd or as people with an interest in maiatining an image for commercial reasons of the purity of US riders. -- auskadi 09:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Golden Wattle maybe the etxt concerning the incredible comeback of Landis has been toned down a little. Incredible is the right word. Something that is hard to believe. That was my main beef. I think however the statement that he is the winner of the Tdf needs to be qualified. Also if one wants to go into all the silly defences, procedural or otherwise in such detail, maybe some of the allegations concerrning what actually happened should be given some space. There is a lot of conjecture concerning the Landis Perdiguero connection. Perdiguero is also associated with a long list of previous positives. And it is Perdi who was and is Floyds main advisor at phonak and since the positive test. If one is going to give so much space to the technical defences (ie those that say well yes there was testosterone, but you didnt follow the procedure correctly) then the facts of the situation regarding the Pedriguero Landis alliance, the way Landis reacted on that day, the sweat, the lack of liquids drunk, the anger at the finish line, all which point to testotserone use and possibly psuedoephedrine (which is now legal) or even, as Mercxk was an alleged advisor, amphetamine use. But the latter would be silly. Cyclists only use that nowadays for training in the winter. Tetosterone is the best bet as Perdi would well of known that any positive stands a good chance of being beaten on a technical defence. So givent hat the glory of Stage 17 has been toned down, maybe the positive should be mentioned directly in relation to that stage in the "race commentary" and maybe there should be a more wide rangiing discussion of the situation and not just a series of apparently pro floyd entrys about technical defences. -- auskadi 11:25, 02 October 2006 (UTC)
The only concern I would have on neutrality is the 'request to dismiss doping allegations' section which not only has info duplicated, it assumes that what the Landis people say is true and even has a very un-encyclopedic entry about how to download said information. Narson 12:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added information from the L.A. Times article going into more detail about the USADA ruling. I feel this is more accurate than simply saying the USADA didn't buy Landis' argument, since the panel did in fact agree that the lab work was flawed -- just not flawed enough to justify overturning the test results, given that USADA rules place the burden of proof on the accused. -- PhoenixVTam 18:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add a section about the novel ideas behind soliciting the Internet to help in his defense. I know his term for the legal strategy "The Wikipedia Defense" is not exactly accurate but it is certainly catchy. Plus, I think that this new type of legal research method could have profound affects on the legal community beyond the Floyd Landis saga. I tried to add a Wikipedia Defense article but it was deleted for notability reasons, and I hope it can be merged into the Floyd Landis article. Morscs5 20:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: "Landis has coined this strategy the "Wikipedia defense". I could not find a mention of "Wikipedia defense" by Landis in the reference given: Snow, Michael Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy, Wikipedia Signpost, October 16, 2006. Where exactly does Landis say "Wikipedia defense"? It looks like Michael Snow the founder of The Wikipedia Signpost coined the words Wikipeda defense. ^_^ -- Electric Eye ( talk) 02:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It is discussed and referred to as the 'wiki defense" in the latest (June 2007) issue of Bicycling magazine. "Floyd Landis is getting screwed, right?" is the cover story for this month. ~~
As a cycling fan with no particular axe to grind - except that at this point (December 2007) there has been due process, and Landis has been found guilty - I've added some text to the Stage 17 summary (the gist being that the result was incredible, and is itself prima facie evidence of drug use). I've also added some text to clarify - for readers who don't know much about pro cycling/sports - that tearful declarations of innocence are the rule, rather than the exception, amongst those with positive drug tests. Cerireid ( talk) 15:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerireid ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I just deleted part of one sentence. (I forgot to log in before doing so.) It is crudely biased to assert that the documents Landis published in his defense are science based. The inclusion of the phrase "fact based" represents a separate flaw. The deleted phrase "fact based science" is in fact ambiguous because "fact based" could be interpreted as either restrictive or nonrestrictive. But the latter interpretation is highly unlikely. The restrictive interpretation means the writer believes there exists science which is not fact based, a ridiculous concept. Science is by definition fact based. Lastly, the prose of the deleted passage was awkward and perhaps even ungrammatical, particularly in the use of "in". Hurmata 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I have an issue with this assertion. Dr. Kurt Moosberger, the doctor of Jörg Jaksche and other cyclists said in an interview with the German news service dpa during the 2006 Tour de France that testosterone patches are used during stage races to aid recovery. Jones, Jeff (Ed.), "Jaksche's doctor: drug use common", Cyclingnews, 2006-7-7
The retired rider Jesus Manzano, who was a whistleblower regarding doping in the former spanish team Kelme and regarding the Operation Puerto doctor Eufemiano Fuentes, wrote in the Spanish paper AS July 30, 2006 that testosterone is used for short term recovery during Tours. He wrote that it provides a rider extra force and a feeling of euphoria. He also outlined the use of testosterone patches, and added suppositories to the methods used during a stage race. [ http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/10613.0.html Hood, Andrew "Manzano: ‘Testosterone effects almost immediate'", Velo News 2006-7-30]
The experts I have seen quoted doubting the effectiveness for testosterone for short term recovery are not experts in cycling or it's doping practices.
In addition both footnotes in the first paragraph are dead links, to pages no longer available.
The second paragraph in this section deals with statistical issues which are not pertinent to the header. I suggest that this paragraph be moved.
And I suggest that the subheader "Uncertainty as to the efficacy of testosterone as a doping substance" be changed to "Evidence of testosterone use for short term recovery" or that the entire subtopic be discarded
Billyjay 13:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why this section even exists in the article. This information belongs more in an article about testosterone. 68.227.223.211 00:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Greg, July 8th,2007
As Uucp mentioned in an edit summary, the biography section needs a fair bit of re-writing. I think best to concentrate on this once the hearing is over? Severo T C 14:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that the most persistent editors of this entry are not objective in their regard for Landis. And the discussion about "pro landis" edits clearly proves that. I agree with severo, leave the rabid emotional spin until after the hearings are long over, go out spinning on your bike instead, and keep pretending that masking agents don't exist. 66.215.80.177 03:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)losgatos_dale
The negative point of view editorializing opening statement is utter crap, I changed it to "FL is an American Cyclist whose specialties were..." and got rid of "overshadowed by doping" nonsense. The biases of editors are so painfully obvious, and when there paragraph goes on to outline the suspension and loss of palmares, it is stupid to insist on redundancy in your text. Grow up! 198.118.127.182 ( talk) 05:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)losgatos_dale
Should the doping investigation/court case become its own article. IMHO there appears to be enough there to justify an article. I am unsure what the standards are for changing a large section of an article into its own article.
--
Ender8282 03:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I separate article would be better, but like Cogswobble said it would require somebody actually putting up their hand and do that. Mathmo Talk 02:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
can someone add this reference into article (I don't know how)
Positively False: The Real Story of How I Won the Tour de France by Landis,Mooney
ISBN-10: 1416950230
--
Billymac00 18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The link given at Footnote 65 (Tanner, Lindsey. "Urine test reveals elevated testosterone levels") at Yahoo Sports no longer exists. Does anyone have a source to support the statement, "However, the increase in testosterone after alcohol intake has also been described as unlikely to have a huge effect in males."?
That line comes immediately after one saying "Alcohol consumption has been shown to increase T/E ratios by roughly 40% in men". It doesn't make sense to say it's unlikely to have a huge effect in males after saying that it has been shown to have a 40% increase in men.
Also, the way the possible effect of alcohol consumption is dealt with in the text of the article ('Testing assumptions and confounding factors' section) gives the impression that there is conflicting evidence of equal weight on each side of this specific point. But I would generally expect the findings of research published in a peer-review journal, and available via Pubmed, to be a more reliable source than an article on Yahoo Sport, so I would like this to be clearer in the article's wording. However, perhaps this would depend on what sources the journalist has cited, if that article can be found. But if that is the case, then I'd like to see the primary sources cited directly on the wikipedia page.
So can anyone provide a source for the contention that alcohol intake doesn't affect E/T ratio? Amruk 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Should he still be listed as the 2006 TDF winner, have an asterix next to it or not listed at all? Ticklemygrits 09:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think i'll change it to disqualified, but I don't think I'll change the stage results. Someone else who nows more about it than me can change that if it's correct to do that. PS GO MANLY!!! Ticklemygrits 16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
At one point in history, Ruiz and Ben Johnson had won their respective races, too. The highest court of the sports world has now ruled against him, and Wikipedia respects that.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
He should not be listed as the winner (he IS NOT the winner), even with the stripped of title add on. It is deeply disrespectful to the actual winner of the tour, the spanaird who was robbed of his moment of glory by someone who cheated and made repeated public statements of innocence despite hard scientific evidence of guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.39.130 ( talk) 03:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think he should be listed as winner + stripped, with a link ~specifying Oscar Pereiro eventually got the title. Wedineinheck 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think there is enough contextual and chemical evidence that points to the fact that, despite the testing results, he is still only "alleged". Therefore, his win of the Tour de France should be listed in the Infobox and Major Results. If you want to put an "asterisk" comment under that, this would be fine.
There is no "hard evidence of guilt" - actually, the evidence is stronger for his innocence. One does not continue to make his case publicly for so long when one is guilty. Landis has a condition that can cause testosterone buildup. Additionally, as is shown later in the article, an overabundance of testosterone is not necessarily a boon to performance.
The inheritor of the title, ironically, also got into trouble this year, so he also must be under suspicion of doping last year as well, although he cannot be tested retroactively.-- 71.42.30.186 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey! It's alliteration! Seriously, folks -- I expected to find a balanced article giving useful background on Floyd Landis. Instead the 90% of the piece is about the doping scandal, and it's nearly all "Go Floyd!" It's okay to include sections about doubts, but this is POV, and I think it might need a rewrite. -- Rhombus 01:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
How would people feel about the removal of the section "Testing assumptions and confounding factors"? It's a synthesis of sources, presenting arguments which might have been bandied around internet discussions but weren't ultimately very prominent in the case itself (and aren't particularly relevant any more in light of the CIR results). I suggest removing it as part of the tidyup of the article. It has a single useful reference, the one backing up the initial appearance of the "alcohol defence", which can be used earlier in the article, but the rest of the alcohol argument is moot because Landis quickly retracted it. Comments? Thomjakobsen 17:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the reasons for innocence from the opening paragraph, there is enough of that in the article. I added information about his B samples from the 2006 Tour showing the presence of synthetic testosterone. I also removed the section about possible reasons for the high T/E ratio, none of those were put forward by Landis as a defense at his hearing. Billyjay 04:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't team leader be more appropriate than all rounder? Mathmo Talk 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I put the doping case into a new article, Floyd Landis doping case. The article was getting extremely lopsided towards his 2006 TDF. — Onomatopoeia ( talk) 18:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a mistake somewhere, the Tour of California is in February and the Battenkill is in April. Tstrobaugh ( talk) 19:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
there was an edit from 222.29.51.14 in which he insert the word "alleged" into a sentence making the sentence "a drug-control test demonstrated the alleged presence of a skewed testosterone/epitestosterone ratio during Stage 17". I have taken out the word "alleged" because i don't think it's right. According to my pocket dictionary "stated without proof" therefore the remark of "alleged" is innaccurate. Phil Nolte ( talk) 13:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I initially realized that with the warrant that was issued, Floyd Landis became a fugitive. I then tried to add him to the correct country-specific category only to find out that it did not exist. I then created it. Why was he removed? I was just stating the fact that he is a wanted man. Jesse Viviano ( talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok to add "and self-admitted liar and cheat" to the end of "Floyd Landis (born October 14, 1975) is an American cyclist"? EdX20 ( talk) 21:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
In the days after Landis was first accused of doping in 2006, his best friend and father-in-law committed suicide. There was speculation at the time about how the suicide was related to Landis' situation, and the issue of whether to include that information in this article was discussed here.
The objections to including it had to do with lack of relevance. Well, now Landis himself has talked about it in the interview with Ford at ESPN:
Q: As long as we're on super-emotional subjects, you mentioned David [Witt], and I guess you must feel somehow like he was affected by what you did. [Editor's note: Witt committed suicide in August 2006. He was Landis' father-in-law at the time. Landis told Ford that on one occasion, he asked Witt to stay in an apartment in the south of France to make sure his supply of refrigerated blood was secure.]
A: Yeah, of course he was. Because he was involved, and he helped. And I've got to believe that if things didn't happen the way they did, he'd still be alive. I'm not saying that's the reason he's dead, but without that, I don't see why he wouldn't still be here.
I think Witt's suicide, along with Landis' divorce from Witt's daughter, are very serious and relevant events in his life, and so should be covered in the article. Landis himself obviously thinks so. Thoughts? Comments? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not think the suicide belongs in his biography page. Just because he talked about it in an interview and might have "if only things were different" feelings about it, as all of us usually do, doesn't mean it belongs here. Floyd Landis is a public figure that has been interviewed over and over again. Everything about his personal life is not fair game for his Wikipedia biography page. It reeks of National Enquirer lowest common denominator stuff.
When you look at the length and detail in this section it is clear that it is a National Enquirer style implication that he bore some kind of direct responsibility for his death, not and indirect responsibility. It is wrong to infer that.
Am I correct in noting that the only mention of Floyd being married is in this section about the suicide? Am I right in loading that in this so-called biography it doesn't mention Floyd being married, who he married married, when he was married or when he was divorced or whether or not he has any children, and the only reference to a wife is in the section about a suicide?
Honestly, is this a biography of a living person or a hit job? Jackhammer111 ( talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I removed a few and tagged the section. I would probably remove the other entries and include them in the body of the article if appropriate. Thoughts? TIA -- Threeafterthree ( talk) 04:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Some nitwit removed my entry about Floyd's being referred to as a rat. All you have to do is google Floyd The Rat Landis or some combination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.118.37.136 ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Floyd Landis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
There was an article in The Atlantic this week titled "The Man Who Brought Down Lance Armstrong." I'm not very familiar with the references format in Wikipedia, so I won't try to add it myself. But here's the link in case anyone else wants to add it. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/05/lance-armstrong-floyd-landis/556868/ Omc ( talk) 00:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Just curious - why is the guy's racing weight, when he was super-doped and TdF-fit, still listed as if it's his current weight? Seems silly. Az x2 03:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)