Bill Hue was a frequent contributor to Trust But Verify. Three years ago, almost to the day, he posted this essay. It takes on a new context given recent events. Here is the original posting and Bill Hue’s comments concerning Floyd Landis’ confessions last week.
Floyd Landis Comfortably Numb
by Bill Hue
originally published on June 7, 2007 at Trust But Verify.
Floyd Landis posted this excerpt from Pink Floyd’s “Comfortably Numb” shortly after he first appeared on the Daily Peloton Forums, now lost as a result of the infamous server crash. The song is from the album and film entitled “The Wall”.
When I was a child,
I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look but it was gone.
I cannot put my finger on it now.
The child is grown.
The dream is gone.
I have become,
Comfortably numb.
Landis was recovering from his hip surgery and had some time on his hands while he mended. The public only knew him from a distance …… the backward hat wearing, syntax mangling, embattled Tour de France winner who had been declared a drug cheat by the powers of his sport and the media.
“Floyd” began posting under his own name at the Daily Peloton. He showed a very different side there given what we thought we knew about him. His observations were sometimes sharp, sarcastic and even sardonic, as exhibited by his postings concerning Greg Lemond. Some of the others were quite complex, as illustrated by this particular quotation from “The Wall”. Many expressed literal rather than figurative points.
Floyd knew the song well enough to post its lyrics. It meant something to him. He may have felt “comfortably numb” after his hip surgery. He also may have felt “comfortably numb” as a result of his recent experience; catching a “glimpse” of the Tour de France title, finding it quickly withdrawn and his life-long dream vanished. He had achieved his childhood dream for a moment but from a world-weary adult perspective and an adult acquiescence to reality, he had become “comfortably numb” to the inevitability that the powers of cycling could take it away from him before he even had the opportunity to appreciate his achievement and accomplishment. Life is complex, interesting and often ironic.
Floyd’s spontaneous posting of these song lyrics might be a little more intriguing if you know its genesis. “The Wall” is a musical reflection of a rock star named Pink’s life, premised upon the metaphor of emotional wall building stemming from his childhood and adult experiences of psychological isolation. Was Floyd’s reference more significant than literally feeling emotionally detached from his predicament?
Pink sought freedom from his isolation through hard work and perseverance in his talent; writing and music. Floyd had also become isolated from his strict religious upbringing and to at least some significant degree, his very religious family, through hard work and perseverance in his talent; cycling.
Unfortunately, after Pink achieved success, the wall of his isolation did not come down, it continued to grow. As Floyd continued to move through the professional cycling ranks, he moved from team to team. He progressed from protégé to lieutenant to co-captain to team captain. In that sense, did he isolate himself from previous leaders and mentors? Did a “wall” of isolation continue to be built, as well?
At the point in the musical where “Comfortably Numb” is performed, Pink has become numbed by his celebrity and his past. The song is a conversation between the world-weary rock star and his physician. Pink tells the physician that the devastated person he is seeing “… is not who I am”. He feels isolated from society and the achievement he sought, fame, has had unforeseen consequences so severe as to render him helpless. He enters an almost catatonic state, unable to function until the physician injects him with a drug, to bring him out of his exhaustion and able to keep “going through the show”.
Hello?
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone at home?
Come on, now,
I hear you’re feeling down.
Well I can ease your pain
Get you on your feet again.
Relax.
I’ll need some information first.
Just the basic facts.
Can you show me where it hurts?There is no pain you are receding
A distant ship, smoke on the horizon.
You are only coming through in waves.
Your lips move but I can’t hear what you’re saying.
When I was a child I had a fever
My hands felt just like two balloons.
Now I’ve got that feeling once again
I can’t explain you would not understand
This is not how I am.
I have become comfortably numb.O.K.
Just a little pinprick.
There’ll be no more aaaaaaaaah!
But you may feel a little sick.
Can you stand up?
I do believe its working, good.
That’ll keep you going through the show
Come on it’s time to go.There is no pain you are receding
A distant ship, smoke on the horizon.
You are only coming through in waves.
Your lips move but I can’t hear what you’re saying.
When I was a child
I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown,
The dream is gone.
I have become comfortably numb.
Floyd had suffered a massive meltdown stemming from dehydration and lack of nutrition, on Stage 16 of the Tour de France (the show) having earlier regained only to lose, spectacularly, the pinnacle of cycling success, the Tour’s yellow jersey. With hip replacement surgery set for after the Tour, the 2006 race was perhaps the last and best chance for him to achieve the ultimate success in his chosen field. At that point, physical limitations and their catastrophic results might have left him exhausted and beaten. Many believe that Landis may have had a similar conversation with his doctor at that time and by plan or desperation received a “pick me up” that worked for him to “keep him going through the show”. If so, innocence had been lost and one might have become “comfortably numb” to sportsmanship, fair play, honesty and other such naïve notions in the harsh and real world of competitive cycling at its highest level, while also expressing that the “shattered” human being was “not who I am”.
After “the show”, “fascist” Pink took control of his life and surroundings and acted rather than being acted upon. Floyd took control of his circumstances after the 2006 Tour de France, forming the Floyd Fairness Fund and declaring “war” on the powers of cycling. He became proactive in his Wiki Defense strategy as opposed to reactive, the unenviable position those accused of sports doping in North America had been in before him. He vowed to bring that system down instead of him or with him, in the event that became necessary.
At the end of the musical, a metaphor “trial” occurred. It was not a trial of law, but rather one man putting himself on trial for the events of his life and coming to terms with the decisions he had made. Pink’s sentence, at the end of his trial, was to “Tear down the Wall”.
Floyd Landis has been put on actual trial not only for events in the 2006 Tour but also for decisions he made; to fight the powers of cycling, to defend himself publicly, to form the Floyd Fairness Fund, to demand an open and public hearing and for his choice of friends and words.
The events in the 2006 Tour were the actual subject of the disciplinary proceedings in Malibu. His decision to fight the powers of cycling have been fought in the press through comments by WADA head Richard Pound, UCI President Pat McQuaid and USADA General Counsel and soon to be Chief, Travis Tygart. His decision to demand an open hearing and defend himself publicly has caused his character to be challenged through the bizarre twists and turns of events involving Greg Lemond and Will Geoghegan. USADA has demanded the names and addresses of contributors to the Floyd Fairness Fund, potentially subjecting thousands of people to scrutiny simply for supporting Floyd Landis.
Ultimately, we are left with questions and no answers. Was Floyd subconsciously identifying with Pink’s life and story by posting the lyrics? Were his observations literal rather than allegorical? Is he a simple or complex man? Is he Machiavellian or forthright? I suspect that like most of us, he is some of each.
Finally, what is “The Wall”? If in Floyd Landis’ case, it is a metaphor for the monolithic anti-doping system (rather than the psychological weakness of a man), tearing it down will fulfill one of his goals in combating it. If it is psychological weakness, it will only come down once the truth is told, truthfully. If it is the self-serving, psychological weaknesses, bias and world view that are part of everyone’s life, it will never come down and then all in all, we’re just another brick in the wall.
TODAY
Back then, no one other than Floyd Landis and his closest professional and personal entourage knew what the truth really was. Now, presumably, we all do. It seems clear to me that Floyd wasn’t just giving us the lyrics to a song he liked but was giving us a hint as to the actual reality of his experience as a professional bike racer.
Floyd is much smarter than anyone gave him credit for. While he depended on a former team’s contacts to know when he would be tested, when he left that team he learned the science and hired his own staff to avoid detection. He bought a machine to evaluate his test results. He examined his samples with his own microscope. He even knew how to flush the dope out of his system by drinking scores of water bottles on a hot and humid day.
He learned and utilized these and other methods to cheat in a sport where cheating was the status quo. He even tried to negotiate the terms of his professional contracts to include the money he had to spend on a doping regimen.
The “little pinprick” given to Pink in “The Wall” was the EPO/HGH and/or blood transfusion given to Floyd through the instructions of Dr Ferrari…
O.K.
Just a little pinprick.
There’ll be no more aaaaaaaaah!
But you may feel a little sick.
Can you stand up?
I do believe its working, good.
That’ll keep you going through the show
Come on it’s time to go..
When he got caught, he was savvy enough to know how goofed up the anti-doping system was because he and everyone else who was successful were beating it day after day and year after year. He knew that he didn’t do what they said he did when they said he did. He had just done other things then and at other times that either they didn’t smugly presume to be able to prove or were blissfully unaware of. On behalf of one part of a corrupt system, he took on another corrupt part of the same system in his disciplinary hearing.
Once pledged into the culture of doping and a full fledged member of cycling’s Omerta, Floyd became “comfortably numb”, lost in his immersion in the tawdry professional cycling system. He could cheat without guilt, could point fingers at corrupt prosecutors when he and his brethren were equally corrupt and could even ask innocents for money to support a crusade that had no real righteousness but which did have plausible merit.
Was Landis completely soulless? I don’t think so, because his specific lyric choice referenced childhood innocence, adult resignation and a fleeting glimpse of something pure and good, indicating recognition of a loss he could not put a finger on.
When I was a child
I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown,
The dream is gone.
I have become comfortably numb.
Wallowing in the morass that is professional cycling, the comfortably numb Landis could show his loyalty to cycling’s Omerta by flying its colors. Dressing completely in black in his disciplinary proceeding, he condemned Greg Lemond’s “turning” on cycling. But the funeral attire also was symbolic of mourning for his own betrayal to cycling’s Omerta when he confided the truth to Lemond in a conversation he had hoped would always have stayed quiet.
I think Floyd knew that that grown child, without a dream and dressed in black was not who he really was. Even back then, there was some hope for redemption.
When I was a child I had a fever
My hands felt just like two balloons.
Now I’ve got that feeling once again
I can’t explain you would not understand
This is not how I am.
I have become comfortably numb
At the end of “The Wall”, a metaphor “trial” occurred. It was a trial that a person puts himself through to attempt to atone for the events of his life and come to terms with the choices he has made, given the life he chose to lead. Pink’s sentence, at the end of his trial, was to “Tear down the Wall”.
Floyd’s sentence didn’t come into being until cycling turned its back on him. He would not have been redeemed, if indeed he can be, had not the arrogance and inhumanity of those left in the sport not caused them to cast him out as they had done to others countless times before. This was one time the sport wouldn’t be allowed to eat its own. There would be no Marco Pantani ending for Floyd Landis. Business as usual was coming to an end.
Floyd is tearing down the Wall and we now know what the Wall is. It is the riders’ use of dope, team managements’ complicity in doping, sponsors’ benefit from doping, complicity by a cycling “union” in doping and an anti-doping “justice” system that is false, corrupt and only recently has begun to catch riders for the actual doping they commit.
I am saddened by Floyd’s confessions but they have not surprised me. I too, have become comfortably numb.
{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }
Beautiful post! You have surpassed yourself in eloquence, grace and personal insight.
But I don’t believe a word of it.
I have a feeling I’m going to regret what I have to say, but …
DAMN!
Comfortably numb? Nonsense. If you’re comfortably numb, that’s a radical change in character. OK, sure, there was always a level of detachment in your writing — there was always some part of Bill Hue that stood off to one side, laughing at the absurdity of it all. But your writing was infused with sensitivity and feeling — you know, all the things that are the polar opposite of numbness. If you were numb then, or were becoming numb then … well, you sure fooled me.
I always admitted the possibility that Landis might have doped. I never for a moment had an inkling that you might not be feeling anything. I’ll be honest: if you didn’t feel anything, if you’re not only “numb”, but “comfortable”, then I have some choice and unkind words for you, and I will deliver them to you privately if you want to hear them. If you weren’t feeling anything, then you betrayed me even more than Landis did.
I choose to believe that what you’ve written here comes from a place of pain and shock, that you are stunned into a state where you don’t know what you’re feeling or how to react.
So I say: damn! FEEL something! And SAY so!
Floyd’s story is NOT some adolescent fantasy of an “everyman” victimized by a nightmare dystopia. Floyd is responsible for the choices he made. Maybe it was difficult to choose not to dope. Maybe it was difficult to choose not to lie about the doping. But please explain how your Pink Floyd analogy extends to the Floyd Fairness Fund?
The better analogy would be to “Tommy”. At some point in the story, Floyd is running his own version of “Tommy’s Holiday Camp.”
But I digress.
I have been accused here of being vengeful, of holding onto my anger for way past when it’s healthy to do so, but DAMN! At least I’m feeling SOMETHING. Numb is got to be the worst thing you can feel. And if you ARE feeling numb … then at least don’t feel comfortable about it! If I were to wake up and, say, notice that I can’t feel anything in the index finger of my right hand, I am not going to feel comfort. I’m heading straight to the doctor.
There a difference bwtween “numb” and “anesthesized”. Numbness is a generally unhealthy state, particularly if it persists. If you’re conscious of persistent numbness, then the general rule is to seek treatment.
Cal and I have discussed the problem of letting other people’s actions control our emotions. But DAMN! What can you say when you allow someone’s actions the ability to deny you the ability to feel anything? And that this is a “comfortable” sensation?
You and I have had our back-and-forth in the past: me out there beating the bushes, trying to “find the law” (as we used to say in law school), you giving me the wisdom of legal realism. I always felt that on some friendly level, you were laughing at me. For you, it was never about doing things like interpreting WADA rules in light of ISO standards. For you, it seemed (to me at least) to be primarily about fairness and due process. You took your wisdom and compassion, applied it to the facts that tied in to your view of the basic principles of justice and jurisprudence, performed your “sniff test”, and pronounced the whole think a stinking mess.
I laughed too. Again in a friendly way. I laughed that you were the judge, me the lawyer. Our roles are that I’m the guy who’s supposed to persuade you (mostly by use of objective criteria) that the law supports my client’s cause — and you were not buying anything I had to say!
Now you pronounce yourself “comfortably numb” — not MADE numb by Landis’ revelations, but BECOME numb at some earlier point, or more accurately RENDERED numb by doping, complicity in doping and the evil of the anti-doping system. I don’t buy it, I’m not going to buy it, it doesn’t wash.
I completely disagree with your read of Floyd, and we could discuss Floyd’s pathology for the rest of our lives if you want. But first: let me know when you’re willing to admit that you’re feeling something.
If these words seem harsh … I’m sorry. Maybe I just look foolish, spouting all this moral outrage against Landis and his lying and his fraud. Moral outrage is not really my thing. I’m a lot better at cooling down a hot situation than heating up a cold one. But I find a bunch of my old friends acting like zombies, and forgive me Bill, but you are acting like the king of the zombies.
OK, that’s it. Had it now. My turn to write what I might later regret. But enough’s enough. Back the fark off, Larry. A few posts ago, you were emotional about not wanting to write about LA for personal reasons. I can respect that, but now you don’t want to extend the same courtesy to Judge Hue. That stinks, and you owe his Honor an apology. This is not the place, nor the time, to make personal attacks, and Rant warned us all. I learned alot about myself and things at TBV and here at RYHO. These are good people willing to share, but every other post on the comments seems to be from you and SusieB about how pissed you are. Now you seem to be pissed that other people aren’t pissed.
Take it somewhere else. Had it. I’ve learned a lot from you, and I respect you as a peer. But you’re eating into some of that credit I’ve banked on your side of the ledger. Saying “I’m sorry” up front doesn’t cut it. You want us to forgive you now, in advance, but you’ll stand in judgment of others? No farking way, my friend.
//rant off
8-0, message received. I think it’s harsh, but I know you to be a good guy, so I figure I have it coming. I had received the message earlier that I’m, well let’s say, out of step around here.
Lying is wrong. Stealing is wrong. I worry about people who aren’t bothered by being lied to and ripped off. It’s not healthy. Really.
Enough. I gave it my best shot. I’m sorry I offended you. I really am. I said it, moral outrage is not my best thing. I’ll return to my baseball blog, where everyone else is outraged all the time and I can be the voice of cool reason.
Out.
Larry
Since my accident, I am much more spiritual. Those who know me best have noticed a calmness and tranquity about me. Maybe I lost some passion but I replaced it, it seems ,with an increased empathy and compassion I lacked before.
Anyway, I needed the change. Our lives have been hugely challenging the last 12 months. I have seen a disruption by an accused double homicide perpetrator that went national. There is a potential serial killer accused in my court as well.
Maybe I’m at peace and accepting rather than comfortably numb.
In any event, anger isn’t something I’m investing in these days.
Sorry if this is more than you wanted to know but I wanted you to understand the context but also to let you know that I’m still the same guy except that my perspective has changed some.
Bill
Goes double for you Judge Hue. I note with some chagrin that I lack a WI shingle on my wall (and there are indeed many bricks in it) and that prevents me from the honour of serving before you. But then, that means I can send a tasty beverage your way.
Nice place you have here, Rant. Getting my money’s worth.
Figures, I’d be out without my cell phone (forgot it) for a few hours while the fur flew. Sounds like it’s resolved. I hope so, anyway.
Larry,
Moral outrage can be a good thing. It can inspire people to take up a cause and pursue it. That’s kind of what got this whole thing started here. Only, now it turns out that the whole picture isn’t what we thought at the beginning.
Bill,
Excellent article. I’ll post more thoughts later, but we have a couple of guests arriving soon.
Cheers, everyone.
(@ Giro, in case you didn’t get that..)
That’s good. Pink-Floyd.
Back to Bill’s article…
Here’s what I’m thinking. “Comfortably Numb,” as a phrase, could describe the gradual getting used to the things we experience the more we participate in an activity or a job or a relationship or whatever. The way things really work becomes well, “normal.”
This blog started from a feeling I had that Floyd Landis was getting a raw deal, both in the press and in the way the case against him was being handled.
When I saw Landis’ initial press conference, to me he looked like a deer caught in the headlights. Scared. Not sure what was happening. Not comfortable in dealing with the media in the way that some others in the sport are. Not nearly as polished and poised as some notorious liars who have answered similar questions from the press.
Part of that was understandable. Landis wasn’t a household name in America until he looked like he might win the Tour, then seemingly fell apart, then miraculously clawed his way back into contention. He hadn’t gotten used to the media attention — yet.
I’d heard of him. Seen his name in cycling magazines and web sites over the years. Didn’t follow him all that closely, pre-2006, to be honest. To me, he was the brash young cyclist who said before the 2005 Tour, “Lance can be beaten.” Or something to that effect. I liked his style, though, what I knew of it. But I wasn’t a huge fan.
So when the shit went down, I knew a bit about Landis. Until the New York Times Magazine story that came out during the 2006 Tour, I had no clue he was riding on a bum hip. That was every bit as gutsy as coming back from a hunting accident or surviving cancer. The daily discomfort and pain must have been immense at times.
So, the American in me (I’m a dual citizen, if you didn’t know), was drawn to that story line. Kid from the sticks, unusual background, through hard work gets to the pinnacle of his profession, then has to overcome a bigger hurdle just to win ultimate success. Almost Horatio Alger-like.
The way he was treated in the aftermath of the positive test seemed to me a bit of dirty pool. Here’s the head of the cycling federation, leaking the identity of the person at a press conference, in violation of his own organization’s rules.
The head of either USADA, USA Cycling or WADA (I know which, but I’m not allowed to say) leaked the 11:1 T:E ratio to the media. This had the appearance of an organized effort to smear the guy even before he had the test results in hand, so that he could at least understand what he was being accused of. And the mainstream media and a lot of the sports media parroted what they were fed by their sources, rarely bothering check their facts or to do a deeper analysis of what the evidence or results actual implied or meant.
I wrote a couple of letters to the editor, and submitted a couple of Op-Ed pieces (unsolicited), all of which amounted to a whole lot of nothing. None of them were published. But I was still mad about how the guy was being treated. Guilty or not, he deserved to be given the deference required in the rules and given the opportunity to understand what was going on.
So my wife encouraged me to start a blog — the one you’re reading now.
Now we know that Floyd may have understood all too well what he was being charged with. But he also understood that the lab was accusing him of using a drug that he still maintains he didn’t use. So, in protesting his innocence, he wasn’t lying — at least not yet.
It appears that in the top level of cycling — or maybe just on certain teams — doping was not only accepted, it was encouraged, and maybe even a job requirement. So Landis was playing the game the same way everyone else was. Having gotten used to how the game is really played (even if they don’t tell us fans), Landis could easily say he won fair and square. After all, he did no different than anyone else.
Comfortably numb. As in accepting the way the game is played. That may not have been who he was or how he wanted to do things, but to get where he wanted to go, the choice seemed clear. Dope and win. Don’t dope and never get his hand on the brass ring.
The evidence against Landis still seems shaky to me. I don’t think it proved he used testosterone. Could it have been in his system as a remnant of previous use? Possibly. Could it have been in blood drawn weeks or months earlier, and then re-infused during the Tour? Possibly. Could it be that the lab was sloppy in their work and/or interpretation of the results? Maybe. Perhaps the results gave a hint that he’d been using in the past, even if he hadn’t during the Tour.
But we now know that he was using something. Like HGH. So he wasn’t completely clean. And, given the history of doping in cycling, I wonder just how many squeaky clean riders have ever won the Tour. (Personal guess: precious few, if any.)
We’ve learned that the anti-doping effort has a very dark side to it. It’s not about catching cheats, it’s about protecting investments. In particular investments in the Olympics, or team sponsorships or what-have-you. Whenever big money gets involved, corruption follows.
It is what it is. Landis fought hard, followed what he thought the marching orders of the brotherhood of the Omerta required. Maybe too well. He fought so hard that people have seen behind the curtain, and it’s not the powerful Oz who is running the anti-doping show, it’s some skinny little runt playing like he’s a great wizard. Landis is, at this point, persona non grata in the world of pro cycling. He gave us that fleeting glimpse of how it really works. This is the real crime he committed.
If he’d taken Pat McQuaid’s suggestion (“shut up, take the suspension, save your money, spill your guts about you-know-who”), Landis may well have been accepted back into cycling. Though not without a round of public humiliation. That would have had to happen, just to appease the masses. Landis would have served as that thin veneer that makes it look like the system works, when it doesn’t. If you believe what Floyd says his regimen was, how is it that the system didn’t catch him before? Simple, the tests don’t work and the cyclists know it. They know how to beat the system, even today.
Because Landis raised money to help in his defense (dragged kicking and screaming into that enterprise), and because he’s `fessed up, there are a whole lot of people who are mad. They feel like fools for donating, for believing in the guy. And I’m one of the people who suggested that, hey Floyd, if you don’t have all the money you need, I’d be willing to donate.
I should, by rights, be as hopping mad as Larry or Susie B. More so. After all, I was one of the cheerleaders of his effort to clear his name.
The news that he admitted to doping — though not to using testosterone — was like a thunderbolt. I can’t quite put a label on what I’ve felt since then, but one word would be numb. Not comfortable about it, but numb.
Before Landis came along, I knew stories of doping that went back decades. Truth be told, there has never been an era of pro cycling that was PED free. It is what it is. Doping in cycling is like water and swimming. Pro cycling doesn’t happen without doping, just like swimming doesn’t happen without water.
Heck, after Knud Enemark Jensen, a Danish cyclist, died in the 1960 Rome Olympics, a French official said something on the order of, “Sure, our professional cyclists dope, but we would never give such drugs to amateurs.” That was 50 years ago. It was “normal” to be a pro and dope. It was accepted by those at the upper levels of the sport.
In researching my book, what I found is that the use of PEDs is a long-standing tradition. Drugs have always been around, as have athletes and coaches willing to use them to get an edge on others. Hearing that a particular athlete doped is no great shock anymore, if it ever really was. Not that I approve, but it is what it is.
I understand the outrage of being taken. Statements by Floyd that he’d never used PEDs were ways of toeing the party line for pro cyclists. But those same pros know it isn’t true. Many do use, though some, I hope, have moved away from doping. Floyd knew it wasn’t true. But it was part of the story to raise funds to challenge the system.
I don’t know why, but for me that level outrage was momentary. For others, that outrage continues. It’s not right to fool people into such things, and it can jade our responses to people in the future who really need help.
Landis has said he would pay people back, if he had the money. Maybe over time, he will. We’ll have to wait and see on that.
I don’t know why I’m not more outraged. Can’t say why I’m not so mad I want a pound of flesh. Maybe it’s because of what I’ve learned over the intervening years. Maybe it’s just that I hit a certain amount of “outrage fatigue.” Whatever it is, for me there is a feeling of numbness deep at the heart of it all.
Bill, I’m glad you found peace. Peace IS a sensation. I wish you well.
It will do me good to spend time elsewhere.
Here’s my farewell message to you all:
I cannot accept a version of events that ignores Landis’ personal responsibility for what he’s done: not so much the doping, but the violation of personal trust. This may not be part of your narrative of the Landis case, but it’s part of mine.
Many of you have labelled my reaction as anger. There’s anger included in my reaction. I admit it, and in no way am I ashamed of it. But there’s something more.
It is a serious matter, being asked to join a cause, working for the cause, making the cause a part of your personal identity, only to have the cause revealed to be a lie. I’m not going to draw any analogies — I get in trouble when I draw analogies — but I suggest you try to draw some of your own.
I suggest we’ve been through a shock that’s akin to trauma, and that we take seriously the blow we have taken and the damage it can cause. We may dismiss this business as “sport”, grown men playing children’s games, but the truth is that we have emotional capital invested in these games. A portion of our identity was tied up in the person of Floyd Landis. That portion of our identity is now shaken, perhaps lost. People react badly to this sort of thing. It is no joke. I counsel you all to take it seriously.
I cannot accept a narrative of events that fails to recognize the damage Landis has caused by his violation of our trust. I cannot heal without this recognition. For me, diagnosis precedes cure. But upon reflection, maybe there are other ways that you might heal.
I wish you all your own personal path to healing..
I have wondered if I shouldn’t be more angry at Floyd, because I did strongly defend him. But when I really think about it I was well aware that he may have been doping. I’m not an expert, and your book is still waiting on my list, but I’ve followed cycling and other sports long enough. I know what goes on. A large part of the reason I defended him was because I felt that he was getting shafted. And his admissions haven’t changed that.
So yes, it’s disappointing. But no, I can’t get all outraged over it. Too many of the cyclists I’ve enjoyed have or probably have used the sauce at least at some point. Everyone’s human and that’s a large part of the sport’s history. I don’t know how as an adult you can be a fan of any major sport and not know some of the shady undersides of it.
One would hope that events like this would help clean things up. I doubt doping can ever be completely removed, but less of it and less temptation would be good. Sporting organizations that are also honest and fair would also be good.
Sounds like there’s more to “doping” than just drugs. Stretching/breaking the rules is a practice that goes well beyond PEDs.
William,
Indeed, it makes Dick Pound sound almost prescient.
JD,
Thanks for following, and for posting a comment. It’s certainly been a lively discussion around here. Especially in the last week.
Ken,
I sure hope that someday doping will truly be a minor problem within cycling. And that someday we have sports organizations and federations that are honest and fair. There’s a long way to go before that happens, but we may just get there.
Now that Valverde has drawn 2 years worldwide, I wonder what he will have to say? Wasn’t he on the Casse d’Espargne TdF team with Pierero in 2006? If so, I presume he shared in the prize money distributed to Oscar – perhaps an interesting twist.
Alessandro probably has too much to lose to come clean. Basso just won the Giro after having only trying to dope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nd13ARuvVE&feature=player_embedded
Sourced: http://bit.ly/93ouYq
And I think anyone caught using such an altered bike should get at least the same 2 years ban as someone who used PEDs. At least a doper is using only his own power, augmented as it might be.
(Floyd Landis in 4/10/05 ‘The Ride’ magazine article entitled “Floyd Landis and the Honor System”)
“The Floyd Fairness Fund is being set up by Michael Henson & Brian Rafferty & it’s supposed to be up & running around January 3rd….The asking for money doesn’t make me feel that comfortable & it goes against my character, but I NEED HELP TO FIGHT THIS & TO GET A FAIR HEARING. I’M INNOCENT & for the world to know that, THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE RIGHT.”
(Floyd Landis in 1/1/07 Daily Peloton interview by Cathy Mehl. CAPS emphasis mine)
“I’ve NEVER CHEATED ONCE IN MY CAREER”.
(Floyd Landis in ‘The Outcast’ NYTimes.com article by Sara Corbett 8/19/07. CAPS emphasis mine)
“You can’t say, well, because we had a bunch of cheating before, let’s just convict everyone & clean this thing out. That’s no way to fix anything”.
(Floyd Landis in 1/18/08 Velonews.com 3-part interview by Neal Rogers)
Last week, I mentioned that Landis had not been a “hero” of mine, but that I was a fan since 2002. I tend to be very selective in the use of “hero” & do see a difference between “hero” & “sporting hero”. It is fair to say that in the 2006 TDF, I did see Landis as a “sporting hero”. Also, I liked Floyd Landis quite a lot, at least what I knew from watching, reading & listening to him since 2002. He was smart, funny, tough, hard-working, & had that unique personal history. He also had a bit of a temper & was stubborn as Hell. Something that I’ve observed & read about in many great achievers & thus something I found as mostly admirable.
Thanks to Landis’ case, I read more than I ever wanted about doping in cycling of the last 2 decades. As mentioned here, I also became reluctantly & sadly convinced that doping had been pervasive thru the entire top pro-level of the sport. Did EVERYONE dope? I didn’t think so, but I acknowledged that the majority probably did. Do I detest Floyd Landis for doping in that environment? No, although it is very disappointing.
What about the lying, then. Do I detest Floyd Landis for lying about the doping? Again, not so much as disappoinment.
What I will NEVER forgive is the ASKING FOR & TAKING OF THE MONEY FOR HIS DEFENSE when he actually DOPED. That is crossing the line into FRAUD.
I do find it quite humorous that some here seem to think MY (& Larry’s) anger is out of line or that we want some over-the-top retribution. I hardly think wanting MY MONEY BACK (& for anyone else who wants theirs) & expecting the criminal who committed FRAUD & PERJURY to spend some time in jail is “over the top”.
It’s not like I want to hang him by his thumbs in the town square & have people go by smacking him with bike shoes. Althooooough…. Joking! I’m joking!
Anyway, I spent part of the weekend digging out & rereading many of the Landis articles & blog posts from 2006-2008 that I still kept. (Larry – you once nominated me for President of the UCI because I suggested the drug tests & trailers at races be sponsored & also designated as the “P*ss & Cry” area.
I am also left even more cynical than before. (Which as someone who graduated Summa in History, is quite a lot). My, oh my, how those involved in this sport must howl when they read the fans arguing over who is “clean” & who is “dirty”. And what about Floyd Landis? I know for a fact he read & posted on the Daily Peloton Forum (I was there at the time) & so he saw how these people argued whether “Floyd” could ever have doped because he is so honest, etc, etc. Did he wince? Laugh? Shrug? HOW does someone with a CONSCIENCE then think it is OK TO TAKE THESE PEOPLE’s MONEY when he DID the very thing he said he had NEVER DONE? Here is another Landis quote from that Cathy Mehl 1/07 Daily Peloton interview : “I still live my life respecting other peoples dignity & rights, & giving people the same respect which I expect for myself”. Well, what the HELL happened, Floyd Landis, or was that just ONE MORE LIE?
The Floyd Landis that I liked probably existed & still does exist in some part. But his FRAUD & the continual lying about his motives now has obliterated my desire to know.
Interesting series of quotes. Thanks for digging them up.
One thing I would say is that we all react differently and feel different things. There’s the old “seven (or however many) stages of grief.” Each person feels whatever they feel. Anger, sadness, disbelief, numbness, whatever. Is one person’s reaction “over the top” and another person’s not, just because for whatever reason they reacted differently to the news?
I can’t say. In some way, we’re all coming to terms with this new version of “the truth.” Is it THE TRUTH? I don’t know. Will we ever know THE TRUTH? I wonder. It reminds me of the old radio show opener, “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Only The Shadow knows…” One thing I do know is that I’m not The Shadow. Otherwise, I’d tell everyone what THE TRUTH is.
Here’s a question I’ve been pondering (and it plays into that quote from Sara Corbett’s article): If everyone cheats, is the game actually “fair”? Do the participants see their shared cheating as somehow not cheating, because everyone knows that everyone else is doing the same thing?
The “mechanized doping” stories remind me that the desire to improve “athletic” performance knows no limits. It’s not just through drugs, or lighter bikes, it’s through any means. If a motor can be hidden in a frame, and the rider can get a “boost” when needed, someone will figure out how to do it.
Ultimately, all forms of cheating are about gaining an edge on one’s competitors. Whether it’s drugs or motors or what-have-you, it’s all cheating. (Although, drugs add the dimension of negative health side-effects.) But if everyone is cheating using the same method and they all know what’s going on, have the players just rewritten the rulebook to their own liking?
Regardless of all that, one aspect to this episode gives me pause. Landis was initially reluctant to take other people’s money to help fight to clear his name. Given the latest twist in the story, I have to wonder if that was in part because he worried how people would react if the bigger truth came out. He may not have used the testosterone, but what would people say after finding out that he had, in fact, been doping.
I’m not saying that it couldn’t be done…there are some pretty amazing electric bikes coming onto the market…however no matter how small the package, it still would be quite an amazing feat to put it all inside a road race frame and have it be totally concealed…maybe if you have NASA’s budget. And then the pesky problem of how much this contraption would now weigh…add even 10lbs to a 15lb race- bike…that’s a significant penalty….that motor best be up to the task! And the battery pack won’t last very long…so if you can pull the sneaky swaparoo once in the opportune time, then you’d need to swaparoo AGAIN before the finish (where someone would have a chance to find out it’s a scam) would look pretty suspicious. It’s quite absurd honestly.
Just my 2 cents worth…nice to have something to talk about besides what’s his name. I’m just gonna ride my bikes and enjoy the show (racing)…and chalk it all up to int heend being just like pro-wrestling…it’s entertainment pure and simple, albiet some awesome athletics are no doubt involved. But not worth getting my knickers in a twist over in the big scheme of things.
About electric assistance, just have a look there :
http://www.gruberassist.com/
It’s not difficult and already used.
I saw an online video with Italian reporter Davide Cassani (he’s the guy who wrote the article that got Michael Rasmussen in so much trouble), which purports to show how the device is rigged up and how it works. They make a suggestion that Cancellara was using such a system in a couple of the spring Classics. I’m a bit skeptical, but anything is possible. I just can’t see how a small motor like that would produce enough power to give the cyclist a significant boost, but if any of the manufacturers of such systems want to send me a free demo bike for … ahem … “evaluation,” I’d be happy to write about it.
I suppose even a small boost could be the difference between being the first guy up the mountain, or being off the back. And maybe it helps in long breakaways or even in winding up a sprint. Like I said, if anyone wants me to do an eval, use the contact form to get in touch and I’ll tell you where to send the bike.
The 2kg more weight are not an handicap but an advantage in such condition, even on cols.
I dabble a bit in electric powered RC flight and know from that that some pretty amazing things are done these days with electric engines and batteries. Seems I even heard of an electric powered plane capable of carrying a human pilot has been made, but perhaps that’s only my memory playing tricks on me.
Anyway, I do think that something like this is technically possible. A charging port could easily be hidden under the seatpost or the batteries could be removable for recharging. Now, as to whether or not Cancellera was using one of these I won’t say. Those were some pretty amazing accelerations he made in that clip, but while that may warrant taking a closer look at his bikes, it isn’t conclusive proof.
Question – has Landis now said anywhere that he DID confess to GM on the phone that day? Landis was livid that GM went to the media with that story & repeatedly said he had NEVER admitted any such thing to LeMond. In fact, he had said he would have to have been an IDIOT to do so as he barely knew the guy. So, which is it – was his denial of the ‘phone confession’ just one MORE lie or was he an “idiot”?
After thought on this matter, I realize my usual response is probably quite muted. Because of this pattern I will not be helpful to Larry. My response will not lend to a narrative which expresses outrage or articulates clearly the reprehensible nature of Landis’ actions. This should not be construed as being supportive of Landis’ actions in this matter. I think he did wrong. Period. It is more about me than it is about Landis and his actions. Let me explain why.
Dr. Murray Bowen, one of the founders of a larger process of thought called Family Systems Theroy, states in his book, Family Therapy in Clinical Process:
The solid self does not participate in the fusion phenomen. The solid self says, “This is who I am, what I believe, what I stand for, and what I will do or will not do,” in a given situation. The sold self is made up of clearly defined beliefs, opinions, convictions and life principles. These are incorporated into self from one’s own life experiences, by a process of intellectual reasoning and the careful consideration of the alternatives involved in the choice. In making the choice, one becomes responsible for self and consequences. (p.365)
I have discovered over considerable time that anger and other intense emotions have caused me to say and do things I later regretted. After many experiences, I came to decide I wanted to respond in other ways.
The main point of my previous posts was to challenge each person to accept responsibility for oneself in the management of emotions and actions. I have refrained from statements like, “You made me feel,” or “This is your fault.” These comments are illustrative of a system of thought which has allowed me to see myself as a victim. I am not suggesting this is true for anyone else, however it is true for me.
I have worked to develop some life principles. These principles are my own convictions, beliefs and opinions. Let me share a few of these principles. I will accept responsibility for myself. This includes my happiness and my responses to others. I illustrate this by my beliefs about my children. My children are not responsible for my happiness, I am. This belief has allowed me to grant my children the ability to pursue the future of their own choosing. My children’s choices are their own and I am not responsible for these choices. I have encouraged and supported them in these choices without accepting responsibility for these choices. This has been an incredibly freeing experience. No one is responsible for my thoughts, feelings or actions. This does not mean I am not impacted by others choices. I am impacted, but being impacted by others and telling those persons they are responsible from my response to their actions is quite different.
Secondly, I respect others. I will seek to be less judgmental and more understanding of others. I have not done well with this principle in response to Larry and Susie B. I apologize to both of you. You have every right to your anger and your responses. My only point is, “Even in my respect for your right to hold your feelings and respond as you feel appropriate, you are responsible for both. Landis is not.”
Thirdly, I am going to live generously. I will seek to forgive and give myself and my resources to others. I will not allow Landis’ breach of my trust to alter my willingness to live by this principle. It is well thought out and is not dependent on others actions. I will not allow somone else to rob me of my willingness to do this. I do recognize that sometimes I give too much or do not keep appropriate boundaries when I do this. This too is my responsibility.
Let me illustrate once again with a personal story. I own rental properties. I tend to go above and beyond my contractual duties as a landlord. In one instance, I had a group of young adult women living in one of my properties. I was called on several occasions to respond to a problem they were experiencing with internet service. I was able to correct a problem or two, but was told this challenge persisted. I took a couple of hours one night to further trouble shoot this internet problem. Shortly after I got home my phone rang. It was one of the tenants. The one with whom I had cleared my entrance into the property. She proceeded to chastise me for the next 4-5 minutes for entering into her room. This was her personal space and I should have told her I was entering her room. I apologized on at least 3 occasions, only to have her launch into another ramble about how I had crossed important boundaries and she felt personally violated. No I did not go through her dresser. I moved her bed in order to find one of the phone jacks. As time went on, I simply clammed up and allowed her to vent. Eventually she calmed down and we concluded the conversation in a civil manner. I hung up the phone and went on a rant which would have made Rant Your Head Off proud. My wife wondered if I was exaggerating what had actually happened. I told her that I was not. I stewed, did not sleep well that night, and held onto my anger for a couple of days. I weighed my choices and considered the consequences of each. After careful consideration, I decided to do the following:
I would cease to view these young adult women as my own children. I would see them as tenants with whom I had a contractual agreement. I would be guided by this contract and would not do more than I was required to do. This was weighed in light of my principle to live generously.
I decided I would not do anymore trouble shooting if this problem persisted.
When the phone rang a couple of days later and I saw it was the tenant who had soundly chastised me I answered. I was secretly hoping she would begin with an apology. She did not. She proceeded to tell me they were still having internet problems. After calmly listening to her, I said that what I needed to do was completed. I would not be able to be of assistance in this matter. She needed to call her internet provider. Her voice sounded frustrated. A few days later I received an email explaining the internet provider was able to help solve this problem and thanking me for my help.
I slept very well after the phone call asking for my assistance and my refusal to do so. I believe my response was much better than responding with how angry I was and the reason why I felt she had treated me poorly. I think our relationship is probably better because of my response. My anger regarding this situation began to subside when I made the above decisions to accept responsibility for how I would respond in this situation.
When I experience intense emotions I have learned to ask myself the following questions:
With whom am I angry?
What are the reasons I am angry?
What is within my control in this situation?
For those things which are within my control, what can I do?
What do I intend to do?
This intellectual response has served me well. I will not allow myself to become a victim of Floyd Landis’ actions. I do not support what he has done in this situation. However, I will not abdicate my personal responsibility to own my feelings and actions. I encourage others to do the same, but do not suggest you have acted over the top if you do not agree with my viewpoint.
For those who have made it to this point, thanks for reading my thoughts.
Interesting way of looking at life. Well said.
I am not aware that Landis has now indicated he confessed to GM. FWIW, in my opinion I still very much doubt that he did, not because I have any great faith in his (Landis’) veracity but because it would be very much out of character. Why would he have stoutly proclaimed his innocence to one and all and then confess to someone he hardly knew?
In fairness to GM, I think it is entirely possible that he interpreted FL’s phone conversation to be a confession, and subconsciously altered that conversation to be more explicit than it was in reality. Such is not all that uncommon.
I don’t see Larry’s response to Judge Hue as an attack but evidence of a man sputtering in shock. The ‘numbness’ espoused in the piece didn’t bother me so much as the thought of putting Floyd Landis on another pedestal – “tearing down the Wall”? Like some Don Quixote?! Floyd Landis, then & most especially now, is NOT a hero. That many/most of you here do not or just refuse to see that Landis committed criminal acts AND is still lying is something that does anger me. Not at you but at Landis.
Who knows, maybe Landis has lied so much that he’s actually convinced himSELF that he is “confessing” now just to “help” cycling. (Or maybe not – just go back & read some of his interviews from 2007 & 2008, in that 3-parter with Neal Rogers, he must have been RANTING & cursing for hours at USA Cycling & NOW he wants to HELP them? Please.).
It will be a true shame if Larry does stop commenting here. He brought an educated, rational, insightful, prolific voice not just during this latest contretemps, but for the past several years. It will be a LOSS to this blog for his voice to be silenced. Hopefully, it will just be a “break”. And Rant can post on Facebook when you’re back.
Au revoir, everyone.
I am not a lawyer, but Landis may have acted criminally. I do not know. Having said that, I do not have interest in acting to ensure he is criminally prosecuted. If he is, then he will bear that responsibility. If you want to work at that, have at it.
I am not sure I would say that most here do not think he acted criminally. Those who are lawyers probably need more facts. Those of us who are not lawyers are not properly trained to even know.
Just read this.
“Floyd is tearing down the Wall and we now know what the Wall is. It is the riders’ use of dope, team managements’ complicity in doping, sponsors’ benefit from doping, complicity by a cycling “union” in doping and an anti-doping “justice” system that is false, corrupt and only recently has begun to catch riders for the actual doping they commit.”
*******************************************************
While I don’t agree with your characterization of the anti-doping justice system, you’re not the only one who respects his daring. Ali, one of his staunchest defenders on TBV says the same on DPF. He broke OMERTA.
ALI on DPF:
“He doped and he lied and lied and took money from dupes like me but … at the end of the day he did something which nobody else has ever done. He broke the OMERTA. That took balls, regardless of the reasons. For that I think he has done something which deserves respect. I don’t respect him for cheating and lying, but I do respect him for taking this step. Whatever the reasons, he knows what the consequences are … end of career for him. For me, finally awareness of the truth. My beliefs have been fundamentally changed and I thank Floyd for that.”
“Floyd has taken a step forward, despite his many faults. Everyone else has taken a step backward. Everyone else has adopted their well established defence positions, dug into their bunkers. Floyd has gone over the top and is rushing toward the enemy, all guns blazing.”
********************************************
So who else has revised their beliefs about Landis, Lance, and Americans and doping? Are they still Simon pure?
Bill Hue suggested on TBV that the powers that be (McQuaid et al.) essentially framed Landis in order to get him to finger Lance. Funny thing, now that Landis has fingered Lance as a doper, McQuaid calls him a liar and looks like he’s going to do another Verbruggen type whitewash to save the big money in the “sport”.
Time for a little realism rather than hero worship, denial, looking the other way, and protection?
Let me say that as someone who believes Barry Bonds used steroids but still rooted for him because he was my team’s homeboy and still roots for him to beat the feds criminal persecution. Do you have to be in denial to enjoy professional sports, I don’t think so.
Dave: “Everybody cheats, I just didn’t know.”
Dave’s father: “Well, now you know.”
The smarts at DPF were always right.
When I was a child
I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown,
The dream is gone.
From where I’m seeing it these days, as long as we understand that sporting events are just about entertainment and not anything else, it’s certainly possible to enjoy professional sports without being in denial.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that the anti-doping agencies are all good, or that the athletes are all bad. Those are entirely separate issues that don’t have to affect one’s view of the event.
For me they are part of the whole “mafia”, fooling people for thei own interest.
By Rant May 29, 2010 at 10:28 pm: “Landis fought hard, followed what he thought the marching orders of the brotherhood of the Omerta required. Maybe too well. He fought so hard that people have seen behind the curtain, and it’s not the powerful Oz who is running the anti-doping show, it’s some skinny little runt playing like he’s a great wizard. Landis is, at this point, persona non grata in the world of pro cycling. He gave us that fleeting glimpse of how it really works.”
—-
The fact that my donation to the FFF helped pull back the curtain on the anti-doping effort gives me a certain feeling that the money was well spent; even if Landis wasn’t being honest with us. In fact, when taken in conjunction with what was revealed by his hearing, now that Landis is admitting to what doping he was doing is what was needed to expose how big a fraud the anti-doping regime is. WADA really is nothing more than a dancing monkey (to borrow and expression from our discussions on TBV) whose sole purpose is to distract us.
——
By Larry May 30, 2010 at 12:52 am: “I cannot accept a narrative of events that fails to recognize the damage Landis has caused by his violation of our trust. I cannot heal without this recognition. For me, diagnosis precedes cure.”
—–
As far as I’m concerned, the only lasting damage Landis has done is to him self. Sure it is irksome that we were asked to donate under the false pretenses that he was completely clean, but some good did come from it. Like I stated above, exposing the fraudulent nature of the entire anti-doping effort has some intrinsic value because the system can’t be fixed and made to work if the powers to be are able to hide how ineffective the system is.
I’d go so far as to say that the fraud being perpetrated by alphabet soup of governing bodies in regards to anti-doping controls far exceeds what fraud Landis has committed because their fraud creates an illusion of tackling drug doping while not actually creating an effective deterrent. They also just hang the occasional cyclist out to dry as a prop to show they are fighting doping without actually going after those who are enabling the doping in the first place (e.g. those who control the purse strings).
Landis isn’t the biggest villain in this saga; rather he is just a two bit perp who could lead federal investigators to much bigger fish that are actually the enablers.
—
By Rant May 30, 2010 at 8:36 pm: “I sure hope that someday doping will truly be a minor problem within cycling. And that someday we have sports organizations and federations that are honest and fair. There’s a long way to go before that happens, but we may just get there.”
—
I’m not holding my breath that it will happen anytime soon.
—
By susie b June 1, 2010 at 9:12 am: “Overall, I feel sad. Not for Floyd Landis (sorry, that ship done sailed), but for those trying to compete & fit in & make a living in a corrupt arena. And for the fans who believe only to have their trust &/or heart shattered time after time.”
—
My sentiments exactly! I don’t want to invest fan “loyalty” into any rider any longer lest they turn out to be doping in the end.