Think back to your first impressions of Floyd Landis.

Possibly they trace back to his days as a scrappy pro mountain biker. Perhaps you first took note of him when he was a bleached-blonde star of the sea foam-green Mercury domestic road squad. Or maybe you came to know Floyd as Lance Armstrong’s lieutenant at U.S. Postal Service, or as he developed into the underdog GC rider at Phonak who broke through to win the 2006 Tour de France.

Remember the permanent grin, the cunning observational comments, and the sarcastic laughter?

Those days, at least for the time being, are over.

Past incarnations might have shed light on his bottled intensity, but the 2008 version of Floyd Landis is undeniably that of an angry man, one who feels betrayed and abandoned by those at the top of the sport of cycling — those whom he’d hoped would stand behind him after his urine was found to be positive for exogenous testosterone at that 2006 Tour.

Landis has remained largely out of the public eye since his USADA arbitration hearing last May and especially since the panel decided against him on September 20. However, he granted me an interview last week in exchange for posing some of his own questions to USA Cycling CEO Steve Johnson.

Those questions centered on Landis’s USADA case, Johnson’s view of the case, and the way USADA and the anti-doping labs treat athletes in respect to doping violations. Landis framed his questions in search of for “yes/no” answers, however Johnson warned me going into it that “yes/no” answers wouldn’t always be possible.

That interview was posted on velonews.com on Friday, January 11. Two days later I caught Landis at home in Murietta, California, where he had just finished watching his local team, the San Diego Chargers, dispose of the Indianapolis Colts to qualify for the AFC Championship game against the undefeated New England Patriots.

“It was a good game,” Landis said. “[The Chargers] have a chance. I wouldn’t put a lot of money on them, but they have a good team.”

The same could be said about Landis, whose appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport begins on March 19 in New York City. After four months of deliberation, his defense team lost its first appeal when it asked the American Arbitration Association to overturn the sanction of his July 2006 doping violation.

By a 2-1 vote the committee ruled that “the charge of an elevated testosterone/epitestosterone ratio from the sample was not established in accordance with the WADA International Standards for Laboratories,” and dismissed that charge. The panel, however, also ruled that “the charge of exogenous testosterone found in the sample by the Carbon Isotope Ratio analysis is established in accordance with the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations" and that a doping violation had occurred.

In his most outspoken, acerbic interview ever, Landis dropped his share of F-bombs as he spoke out against USA Cycling, for not coming to his defense; against pro teams like Slipstream-Chipotle and High Road Sports, for what he says is the implication that any rider that beats theirs is doped; and against former WADA chief Dick Pound, saying, “[Pound] believes he should win no matter what. He’s worse than the dopers.”

Lands also referred to the current doping accusations leveled at Spanish star Iban Mayo — “they can’t say he is guilty, that is not a positive test” — and responded to the rumors that connect him to upstart domestic Rock Racing team owner Michael Ball — “I don’t have an agreement with him. I am not employed by his team. If I work for his team in any capacity, it will be something that is within the rules.”

More than once during the interview — which is being presented in its entirety here (except for a few key sections to run in an upcoming issue of VeloNews) — Landis told me, “I don't want to sound like I'm just complaining.”

Complaining? No. Angry? Hell yeah.

Neal Rogers: What did you think about Steve Johnson’s answers to your questions?

Floyd Landis: The reason I asked him was because I never could get any support from those guys. I guess it was a misperception of mine that having paid my annual fee to USA Cycling for 15 years, just like everyone else, that they somehow would represent me, whether it be with USADA, or the races, or anything else. I’ve never asked them for anything. I’ve never in any way benefited from being a USA Cycling member. I think it’s pretty clear that cyclists, at the top level, get nothing from the Olympics. It doesn’t do me any good to go to the Olympics. In fact I was invited to the Olympics [in 2004] and I said no.

NR: Why did you say no?

FL: It’s meaningless. It doesn’t have any value for a cyclist. Okay, this is just my personal opinion, but the Olympics are a crock of shit. But as far as cycling goes, it’s of no value.

NR: You don’t think a guy like [2004 Olympic gold medal winner] Paolo Bettini can leverage that into his contract?

FL: If you are a person that can win world championships, and classics, or the Tour de France, it’s absolutely of no value to base your season on the Olympics. There are much bigger things than the Olympics. Cycling is a professional sport, and just like any other large professional sport, the Olympics are secondary. I shouldn’t say they are of no value, but if you are the caliber of person that can win other races there are things that you should focus that are far ahead of that.

That being said, I was always of the understanding that USA Cycling was a mediary, the representing body, a union of sorts for the athletes and the races and the teams— an intermediate for issues. Unfortunately they chose to throw me under the bus and never say a word. The main point I was trying to get across with those questions was: if you are the ones running the federation, and the body representing cycling, how is it possible that you care so little that you didn’t pay attention?

There are only two choices to the answer of that question. Either you lied, or you care so little that you’re not qualified to be in that position in the first place. It’s totally unacceptable that the guy who claims to be representing the actual union of cycling in the United States didn’t even pay attention. It doesn’t even matter why he didn’t pay attention. If he didn’t pay attention, that is unacceptable and he does not deserve to be there.

NR: It seems like since the inception of WADA in 1999, the national federations have relinquished control to the national anti-doping agencies. It took power away from the national federations, and in order to be part of the International Olympic Committee, they have to accept the decision of the national anti-doping agencies. It was designed that way so you wouldn’t have a situation where the fox is guarding the henhouse.

FL: That’s not true. That’s a lie. In fact Steve Johnson admitted it in the questions I asked him. He explained that USA Cycling is not responsible for deciding [a sentence], they are only responsible for enforcing it. That means that had he paid attention, and made the decision that that was the wrong outcome, he was not under any obligation to enforce it. It’s evident in the way the Spanish federation has dealt with Iban Mayo, where the UCI just goes around shopping for test results that they like.

The Spanish federation decided we’re not going to enforce that, sorry. That’s what Steve Johnson could have done — had he been astute enough to pay attention and intelligent enough to understand it. It’s possible he’s not smart enough to understand the science. But in that case he shouldn’t be in charge of USA Cycling.

NR: Well he was a professor of exercise physiology at the University of Utah, so I think we can rule out that theory.

FL: I will tell you, right now, absolutely, without any question, he lied in that answer. He paid attention. He lied. He knows it. He just doesn’t want to answer the question.

NR: I’m trying to think of examples of when USA Cycling has come to the defense of an athlete, and the one that comes to mind is back in August 2005, when L’Equipe accused Lance Armstrong of using EPO at the 1999 Tour de France
after the French lab LNDD tested his urine retroactively.

FL: I wasn’t sure I wanted to talk about that, but that wasn’t the first thing that comes to mind. The immediate thing was Mayo. The Spanish federation isn’t going to pursue a sanction against Mayo. The example of USA Cycling, I don’t know if Steve Johnson was there, maybe he was…

NR: Johnson was there. Gerard Bisceglia was the chief executive officer then, and I believe Johnson was the chief operating officer.

FL: There is a difference with the way they treated my case and the defense they put up in defense of Armstrong. And it’s the same thing with the UCI. Both USA Cycling and the UCI defended Armstrong as if it was the end of cycling if they didn’t fix it. On the other hand, it was much easier to say, we don’t need to help Floyd. But if you do that, you can’t later say, ‘we don’t have any control over it.’

You have to make a decision. Say I am guilty, do it, but don’t sit there and say ‘I didn’t pay attention, I don’t know.’ That’s a lie. There’s something about this entire thing that is obviously, to anybody paying attention, not on the same level as the way they did things even a matter of two years before. Steve comes across as an intelligent human being, and most certainly he should have paid attention if he didn’t.

NR: I was also surprised that he said he hadn’t paid very close attention to your case, that it wasn’t his role. An American Tour de France winner is as big as it gets for USA Cycling.

FL: That’s my point, as far as the big picture, at the very basic level, who is representing the cyclist then? Who is it? Everyone on outside has this idea that cyclists have representation, and the anti-doping agencies have representation and if there is a conflict it gets resolved in a formal way. But it’s clear from his answer that there is nobody who will represent the athlete. None. Even the people who seemingly should be doing it walked away.

NR: I imagine you’ve already spoken with Steve about all this?

FL: I have. Look, I respect Steve, and it’s clear he’s an intelligent person. I also can sympathize with his political position, with cycling being an Olympic sport it means he is subject to certain things he doesn’t have control over. But it’s not acceptable to me for you to say that, well, I’m going to protect my $300,000 a year job and free trips to the Olympics and throw you under the bus even though I know it’s not right, just because I’m looking out for me. Your job is not to look out for yourself. You are getting paid to look out for cyclists and to make sure the rules get enforced.

The reason this all came about is because I wanted to become a director for Rock Racing. I think I would be good at the job. I would enjoy doing it. I like being around cycling. There are many people around cycling who have been accused; there are many people around cycling who have admitted to things. I know cycling has a lot of issues, but the majority of them are forgiven and given a job.

As soon as this came out, USA Cycling said ‘No, Floyd can’t do that.’ Okay, so I guess what he is saying is that we are the ones deciding and enforcing this rule, but because this rule over here is controversial, we’ll just push it off to USADA and we won’t get involved. No, that’s not how it works. If you have rules, and you’ve got a way of enforcing them and dealing with them, you have to be the one to stand up and make a decision. You can’t just sidestep the rules you don’t want to decide on. That is what caused me irritation with the interview with Steve. I do respect Steve, but I don’t accept that he didn’t pay attention. I don’t believe that.

NR: So this thing with Rock Racing has been in the works for a while? A lot of us are just now hearing about it, but I’ve learned that you’ve been talking to Michael Ball since last summer.

FL: I have known those guys for a while. I talked to them last year about things. They are close [in proximity] to me, it’s only an hour away; I can drive up there and talk to them. I haven’t decided, and they haven’t decided exactly what to do yet. I would like to work with them in some capacity. I do respect Michael Ball’s boldness to stand up and say, you guys have rules, enforce the rules the way they are written, don’t make it up as you go. That’s what Michael Ball is doing.

A lot of the way it’s come across in press is that this guy has hired a bunch of dopers. No, he hired some people who are either not currently suspended or were suspended in the past and their suspension is up. The rules are written a certain way, and you’ve got to enforce those rules. The rules were enforced upon me in a very vague way. The labs have these standard operating procedures, so called, and they are free to manipulate them as they like, and as soon as they accuse somebody, it’s presumed they know what they are doing, that the lab and the anti-doping agency did everything right. And that person, their entire career is ruined.

For example, let’s look at Tyler Hamilton. You can think what you want about Tyler. But it’s irrelevant at this point. He’s served his suspension. People who are released from prison because of armed robbery after three years are not prevented from ever living as a human being again. They’ve served their time; let’s give them a chance, right? I’m not saying he is guilty or innocent, I don’t know.

All I’m saying is he served his time. There is no reason for everyone to say Michael Ball is somehow condoning doping because he wants to hire Tyler Hamilton. Tyler has a legitimate license. This problem will never be solved unless USA Cycling and the people on that side, on the side of enforcing the rules, and the people on the side of following the rules, the cyclists, all live by the rules. That is the point of a rule. If rules are ambiguous, if they’re not clear, then make them clear. But the ones that are clear, like a two-year suspension, when it ends the guy can race, then the guy can race, there’s no more discussion.