Talk:Floyd Landis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

so much for npov[edit]

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 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A few facts about the lab[edit]

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)

External Links[edit]

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? (

Dbrower 19:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, in general only the most official and/or autoritative sites should be included. I'm removing the Phonak link now.--Per Abrahamsen 09:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I have added "Trust but Verify" as this appears to be the most thorough, rational and relatively unbiased sites out there. And it is being regularily updated. -- Thoglette 09:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Trust but Verify states on their main page that they are biased, but who cares along as it matches the things you want to put on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of Landis promotion?[edit]

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)

  • Your comments are a string of unsubstantiated claims and charges. This article is not a vehicle for solving problems facing cycling or carrying out a debate about ethics or any other subject. If you have specific suggestions for improving the article, in line with WP policies, feel free to offer them. But innuendo is not welcome. -- Jibal 05:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of non-US editors watching this page. What evidence do yo have for your suggestion of bias or lack of neutrality?--Golden Wattle talk 09:42, 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)

"a lot of conjecture" -- yes indeed. If you have any documented facts, feel free to provide them. WP articles are not for "discussion of the situation". -- Jibal 05:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I read the article through, and it seems fair to me. Stage 17 *was* fantastic, I don't think that should be toned down. As you yourself note, a fantastic performance does not exactly help Landis doping case. With regard to the doping case, yes there is a lot of space devoted to his defences, but also enough space to tear them all apart.--Per Abrahamsen 16:07, 2 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 agree about the 'request to dismiss doping allegations' section. It was added after my previous statement, by an anonymous user, and does not really follow Wikipedia conventions. However, it does contain relevant information, so it should be rewritten rather than just deleted.--Per Abrahamsen 12:40, 17 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)

Wikipedia Defense[edit]

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)

Can you add this content and satisfy both WP:V and WP:CITE? Thanks/wangi 00:11, 19 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. ^_^ --ElectricEye (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 (talkcontribs) 15:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted passage including "fact based science"[edit]

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)

Uncertainty as to the efficacy of testosterone as a doping substance[edit]

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. [ 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)

Second that thought. I find the title quite fuzzy, no matter what thoughts you might have about this case. --abach 00:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that several other cyclists were recently found to have strongly aberrant testosterone levels, the efforts to discredit the findings are definitely discredited by now. Unfortunately, I doubt that the disciples of Landis or Armstrong are ever going to come back to the level of solid science. --OliverH 12:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this section even exists in the article. This information belongs more in an article about testosterone. 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? SeveroTC 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. 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! (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)losgatos_dale

Make doping case its own article?[edit]

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)

For my money, no. How will we view it in 10 years time? It belongs in Tour and Landis articles, but is an event within them rather than an event of it's own right, imho. SeveroTC 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree. I think the sensationalism of the scandal is a significant historic point in and of itself. Floyd had several pre-scandal accomplishments, and theoretically he could have more if he were to return to cycling, which I am under the impression is his desire. A good example is the article on Robert Baden-Powell the founder of the Boy Scouts. He was a well known soldier as well. The battle he is famous for the Seige of Mafeking has its own article, and there is another one just about his sexuality. (Which I admitttedly thought was a bit odd.) The person is significant, but so is this event in history. RobHoitt 02:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the article is broad enough, too many articles on wikipedia are way too broad and need simplification.
I think that currently the doping stuff should just stay in here. I agree with Severo that it belongs mostly in the Landis article and the Tour article. That being said, if someone were to actually create a really good, separate article, I wouldn't object. Cogswobbletalk 15:52, 5 September 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)

Landis book[edit]

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)

As it's his own book, it fails the Wikipedia policy of only using third-party, reliable sources. It could go as an item of Further reading. SeveroTC 18:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
His own book can (and should) certainly be used as references for his own statements. Cogswobbletalk 15:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Effect of alcohol on Testosterone/Epitestosterone ratio[edit]

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)

I found the article (it was an Associated Press article, so it was published everywhere - not just Yahoo Sports) if you want you could look into what the article says and find some primary evidence. kju 01:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that he's been stripped of the TDF[edit]

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 he should not be listed at all. I also think the mention "1st, Stage 17 (voted most combatative rider of the day)" should be removed as well. The French wikipedia article says Christian Prudhomme already declared Landis was erased from official lists of Tour de France winners in May 2007.--Ganchelkas 00:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Usually all the results from the day they tested positive and after are discounted, results before are left to stand. This would take away the stage 17 victory (and award it to Carlos Sastre). However, this needs to be checked out and cited. I would usually do it but I'm dead busy right now so don't have the time unfortunately. SeveroTC 08:15, 22 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)

I did some research and I found a document with the UCI rules on doping, sanctions and consequences, but I also found a document with the ruling of the AAA Panel. I think that the following bit on page 83 is particularly important: "5. The violation of the UCI Rules having occurred as a result of an In-Competition test will result under UCI Articles 256 and 257.2 in the automatic disqualification of the Athlete's results in the 2006 Tour de France and forfeiture of any medals, points or prizes." I think that means all of his results (yellow jerseys, stage wins, combativité, bonification, etc..) in the 2006 Tour de France were erased from the tables, but I'm not 100% certain. Here is the information I found on the UCI website, Part 14 is on anti-doping rules.--Ganchelkas 22:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I think his result should still be listed, but with the precision that he was stripped of his title in 2007. Wedineinheck 23:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
And you still have the problem that the case is not closed - the title could still be returned in the event that the CAS appeal is successful. Even then, to pretend that he didn't wear the yellow on the Champs-Élysées is to apply just a little too much Ministry of Truth to the whole situation. Thoglette (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
the Ministry of Truth analogy is perfect. Just because certain high up people in cycling want to pretend he doesn't exist doesn't change the facts of what actually happened. He DID win these races, it is just latter on it was stripped off him. Thus we should state exactly that. That he won, but then latter had it removed from him. Mathmo Talk 03:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
No, he did not win, because a final ruling of the CAS said he did not win it. He crossed the finish line first, yes, but was disqualified for cheating. No different in principle than Rosie Ruiz.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
oh it is very different from Rosie Ruiz! But I won't get in to that debate, instead I'll point out the main point made earlier that you can not change history. It is an indisputable fact that at one point in history he was the winner of the TDF. (the fact he no longer is, is just a side point that has to now also be mentioned) Mathmo Talk 05:10, 17 July 2008 (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)

TDF title listing issue[edit]

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 (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 his forfeited Tour victory shouldn't be listed under 'major wins' in the infobox, but it should be kept in the 'major results' section, with a mention that he forfeited the title because he used doping and a link specifying Oscar Pereiro was the eventual winner.--Ganchelkas 16:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that it shouldn't be in the infobox or major results section, but obviously discussed at length in the prose. SeveroTC 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the 2006 Tour was definitely a "major result", albeit a bad one. :)) Wedineinheck 21:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't be listed under the major title wins in the infobox.--Crunkel 12:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree. The infobox is for hard facts, backed up by official results only. Anything that needs qualification belongs in the article, where it's discussed in detail anyway. Thomjakobsen 12:18, 24 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.-- 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

On the comment by, whether you think he is guilty or not does not matter. Landis HAS been found guilty and he HAS been stripped of his title. Therefore it should not be listed under "major wins" because officially he is deemed never to have won the Tour. "One does not continue to make his case publicly for so long when one is guilty." When one's income is at stake, one does strange things.--Ganchelkas 15:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you are willing to believe any strawman Landis throws at you doesn't mean that there is any evidence whatsoever for innocence, let alone that there is no hard evidence for guilt. Landis is producing the usual theories of conspiracy and incompetence any athelete produces when caught red-handed doping. They have, unfortunately, very little to do with science and a lot with belief in miracles. -- 08:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Painful POV Problems[edit]

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)

I think it's more a question of bad editing than POV; most of the article was written after Landis had given his defense but before the decision came down against him. By all means, edit it into more encyclopedic form and tone. Uucp 15:27, 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 would agree. The section is painful in its grasping for straws, and even more so in its abuse of scientific literature and its abomination of the term "(counter)evidence". In any case, the caveats of specific tests should not be dealt with in this article, since the topic is Landis, not the T/E ration. -- 08:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup and Balance[edit]

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)

"Rider Type"[edit]

Wouldn't team leader be more appropriate than all rounder? Mathmo Talk 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think "all rounder," when used to describe someone who races in stage races, usually means someone who can climb and do time-trials - ie, someone who is going to get a good gc placement. Ie, not a pure time trialist like Cancellara or a pure climber. I think the fact that he's not a sprinter or something is irrelevant here, if that is your point. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Major cleanup[edit]

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)

Return to cycling[edit]

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 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)

Why was Landis removed from the Fugitives wanted by France category?[edit]

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)

Perhaps because a category with one member is not very informative. Arnoutf (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
One shouldn`t just create a new category, stick a famous name in it by itself, then walk off. There are actually very famous (even respected) people also wanted by one or another of those French judges somewhere. It is unfair to Floyd Landis to stick him in this category by himself, as was done. Henry Kissinger, U.S. citizen, is also wanted in France, but I didn`t see his name listed as a "fugitive". His alleged crime? Oh, he is only wanted for questioning in the "disappearance" (murder, in other words) of Chilean citizens in the 1970s era Operation Condor. And Floyd beats him in this category for knowing a hacker?--who hacked into a loosely run French dope lab and did some minor mischief there? Really, I think this is a bad choice for a new category, at least the way it was done here. Jack B108 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I was agreeing with you until you started characterizing Landis's alleged offense in a dismissive way.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I did not know that Kissinger was a fugitive wanted by France. If so, please put him in the category as well. Jesse Viviano (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
None of this addresses the main problem. A category needs multiple members to make sense. One article is no category, two is still too limited to be of any practical use. If there is a sizable list of fugitives from French justice only then it becomes informative to the reader. So either create a useful category or just don't. Arnoutf (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edit[edit]

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)

No. The same sentiments can be expressed in a more neutral way.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

David Witt suicide[edit]

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)

Yes, please add this material, if you have the time. the Ford interview quotes are very helpful. In any case, his friendship with D. Witt is important to understanding his life and I want to thank you for pointing out this omission. However, be clear that Amber Basile (nee), Landis' ex-wife, was not D. Witt's biological daughter, but the daughter of Rose Basile (nee), Witt's wife (p 38, "Positively False). Jack B108 (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done --Born2cycle (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

External links section[edit]

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)

The Rat monicker[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

See WP:BLP, WP:Libel and WP:RS. Please sign your talk page posts using four tildes ~~~~ 7&6=thirteen () 14:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
See WP:Civil. Comment on the content, not the editors in the future. Violation can get you blocked from editing. 7&6=thirteen () 14:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I just did [1] and none of the first listed hits do actually give it as a relevant, generally used, or even in any use of a, moniker. On top of that, many of the first page of hits do not include the word rat in close proximity to Landis and almost none of these first page of hits seem to be reliable sources. YOU (emphasis intended) must make a strong case, backed by reliable sources here before you should even consider re-adding. (PS calling a respected co-editor a nitwit sais more about you than about the other editor) Arnoutf (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)