Calling The Fixer

Whenever the Bush family’s political fortunes take a bad turn, the person they turn to is James Baker. Baker is a political fixer par excellence, regardless of whether you agree with his politics or not. It’s no accident that he’s the force behind The Iraq Study Group, whose report will be coming out in just a matter of hours. Compared to the current crew running the White House, Baker is a raging moderate — or even, dare I say it? — a “liberal.”

(But that’s only because the meaning of the word “liberal” has been so distorted by the far right that anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan might be called such a dirty name.)

Want proof of Baker’s effectiveness? After the 2000 Presidential election, he was the man calling the shots for Team W in the overtime round between the two Juniors: Junior Bush (not really a “junior”) and Junior Gore (in this case, the real deal — junior-wise). We all know how that turned out, don’t we? If that match was all about strategy (and much of it was), then look whose strategy won — Baker’s.

So in a few short hours, Baker will be unemployed and looking for a new engagement. Not that he needs the money, I’m sure he’s well set financially. But Baker is one of those types who needs to be doing something. And I have a perfect suggestion.

Fix the World Anti-Doping Agency. Yep, you read that right, send in Jim Baker to fix WADA. And you know what? He’ll be able to fix that quicker than a certain war we are stuck with in Mesopotamia. Or as The Daily Show calls it: Mess O’ Potamia.

It’s got all the elements that an ace Fixer like him could want: political intrigue up the wazoo, bungling by a number of people in positions of power and influence, and agencies so convinced of their own infallibility that they may not be paying attention to the actual data shown to them. They may, in fact, be making important decisions based faulty interpretations of data. Sound familiar?

That’s the picture that’s beginning to emerge in the Landis case. From Duckstrap’s analysis over at TBV, and today’s dense discussion of T/E ratios over there, it sounds like there’s a good case to be made that the interpretation of data has been less than stellar in Floyd’s case. I don’t quite know what to make of the T/E discussion, yet — not because I don’t get it — but because it’s so packed with information that it’s taking a bit of time to sink in. I think it’s a positive for the Landis team.

If I’m understanding it correctly, the author is saying that a proper analysis of the data would show that Landis’ T/E ratio was more likely in the 2:1 range than the result we’ve all heard about for the A sample. If that analysis is correct, then no CIR/IRMS should have been done, no B sample tests were necessary and the story should have ended right there.

So how did we get to where we are today? Well, that’s the million-dollar question, isn’t it? I’d say it’s because we have a system that’s seriously broken and seriously in need of a fix. If no other good comes from the Landis case, the attention it’s focused on the procedural problems within the anti-doping system could lead to changes that ensure that athletes are treated fairly. Ironic, isn’t it, that the anti-doping system — which supposedly exists to ensure fair play in sports — doesn’t ensure fair play for those accused but not yet proven guilty.

Doping in sports is clearly a problem. And those who dope should be punished. But before the punishment is meted out, we need to ensure that the accused are treated fairly and with respect from the first test results to the final arbitration hearing.

On this score, the system is failing and most definitely needs to be fixed. The perfect person to do so is none other than James Baker. He’s got all the right skills to turn the WADA organization and its affiliated organizations around. After tomorrow, he’ll have time available on his schedule. WADA’s board of directors should give him a call before some other crisis attracts his attention.