How not to defend your reputation
Published July 31st, 2006 in GeneralFloyd Landis, disgraced winner of the Tour de France, gave one of the worst media performances I’ve ever witnessed as he tried to explain that his naturally high levels of testosterone were to blame for his failed doping test.
Landis started his defence by saying “We will explain to the world why this is not a doping case but a natural occurrence.” Please note the we in that statement because then he burst into a session of babbling, talking about testosterone and epitestosterone, obviously something that his doctors had scribbled down. While the failed drugs test might be a natural occurrence, his performance was anything but.
If you’re going to explain why you’re not guilty to the world then put it in terms they at least understand. Poor Floyd looked like even he didn’t understand what he was saying as he constantly looked back at his notes.
It seems that sportspeople accused of doping try to clear their name by confusing the issue. In this instance I think it is imperative that there is a definitive verdict as the result threatens the future of the Tour de France. The sport is so drug riddled that they’re even talking about bringing in the police and surveillance cameras to help rid cycling of illegal substances.
Interestingly Floyd Landis has a blog which will may underscore his campaign to clear his name. Hopefully the video from his press conference will be posed to YouTube soon.
Technorati Tags: Floyd Landis, Piaras Kelly, PR, Tour de France
2 Responses to “How not to defend your reputation”
Leave a Reply
Search
Categories
- Books (4)
- Buzz (7)
- E-PR (209)
- General (320)
- Ideas (9)
- Personal (107)
- PR in Ireland (145)
- Resources (12)
- Technology & PR (7)
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
i’m afraid the testosterone/epistestosterone jargon is necessary and, to be honest, most cycling fans or followers of doping stories actually know what it means. i would agree with you that his pr is dreadful, but (quel surprise) i’d argue it from different reasoning.
on the day before the final stage of the tour, he was asked his views on the doping scandal that opened the race. rather than condeming the dopers, he tried to argue there was no problem, that it was just a perceived problem, that the press and the public had the wrong idea about the sport. this was even before he was charged with anything, and set alarm bells ringing in the heads of many who have followed cycling and have heard these words before, coming form the mouths of convicted junkies like richard virenque and david millar.
after he was caught, again his responses were evasive and less than convincing - when he started giving responses, that is, having gone to ground for a day and more. it was only after he’d brought his spanish lawyer on board that he started giving more detailed respones. first the cortisone for his hip injury. then the drugs for his thyroid problem. then the two beers and four whiskies the night before his epic escape, after which he tested positive. all could naturally account for elevated testosterone levels.
interestingingly, if the nyt is to be believed, these excuses are all wasted, as the testosterone found has been shown to be synthetic,a nd the testestrone/epistestestorone ratio is claimed to be 11:1 (4:1 is the legal limit, 1:1 to 2:1 is the mean average).
on the pr side, you’d probably have to credit his team, phonak, who were quick to admit it was landis who had tested positive, and were quick to say they’d fire him should the test be confirmed. this is the major change in cycling in the last year or so - the teams are finally respecting their sponsors, and coming down heard on those who damage the team’s - and hence the sponsor’s - good name.
re the website. tyler hamilton had a site dending his innocence. it didn’t stop him being banned, but it did create enough doubt in the minds of many such that there’s a lot of people still believe he was innocent. lance armstrong has used his site to constantly counter-attack his attackers.people
It’s definitely necessary to mention the scientific phrases, but the way he presented his case was atrocious, immediately blurting out terms that he didn’t look like he understood. We live ina world of soundbytes and there was very little from his statement that people could come away with.
Plain English first, Science later