Word on the street is that Team Landis hasn’t yet received any word about when the arbitration hearing will occur, but with every day that goes by the appointed hour seems to be pushed further into the future. A couple of days ago, Martin Dugard observed,
Meanwhile, an hour over the mountain from here, Floyd Landis is doing the same [beginning his training for the 2007 Tour], albeit without a team. Looks like his case might not be heard until March or so now. Hope he gets cleared in time to race Basso.
A March hearing before the arbitration panel is not a good scenario, in terms of seeing Floyd race at the 2007 Tour. First, because it’s unlikely he’ll have a formal contract with any team until the whole process is complete. And second, a hearing at that late a date gives me some real doubt as to whether the whole process will be done in time for the 2007 Tour.
Here’s why: Assume the hearing is in the first part of March. At the very least, it’s going to be a few days of each side presenting their evidence and arguments to the panel. Once the hearing is over, the panel goes off somewhere to make a decision. But at that point, they will have mountains of evidence to wade through and it will take some time to do that and make a decision.
Looking at the recent past, Tyler Hamilton had his hearing before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in February of this year and the decision wasn’t announced until April, about 2 months after the hearing. So if that were roughly the timetable for Floyd’s case, it would be reasonable to expect that he wouldn’t get an answer from the arbitrators until May 2007. About 2 months before the Tour. OK, not a huge problem if that’s where things end.
But let’s say he wins before the arbitration panel. What’s likely to happen next? Well, it’s not hard to guess. Team Anti-Doping will appeal to the CAS. They’ve invested a lot of their credibility in this case, they’re not likely to lose in front of the first panel and just walk away. The anti-doping brigade are going to go down fighting.
If the CAS were quick to set up a hearing and quick to make a decision, things could still work out for Landis to race the tour. But that’s assuming the anti-doping authorities would agree to an expedited schedule. I’m guessing they won’t. Why? Well, let’s just say they have a vested interest in keeping Floyd out of the Tour. So expect that hearing process to take some time.
Could it be over before the Tour? Maybe, but if it is, it will be just barely. Like the day before. Will Floyd be able to get a contract on a Pro Tour team and get himself to London in time for the prologue? It’s possible. Is it likely? Hard to say. I’ll say this much, I’d sure like to be in London and Canterbury next summer to watch Floyd kick some ass. If I had the time, I’d love to follow every stage. That would be exciting.
But here is what I’m afraid of: The appeal process drags out, due in no small part to the foot-dragging of the anti-doping agencies, WADA and LNDD. The appeal won’t even be heard before the Tour starts, and the decision will be handed down even later. Like in the autumn. No 2007 Tour for Floyd, no chance to defend his title.
Until 2008. Assuming Floyd gets cleared at the CAS, or that his being cleared in the first round is upheld at the CAS, Floyd would then be able to compete in the 2008 Tour. Perhaps, if the decision comes early enough, he would be able to compete in some of the later races on the 2007 calendar.
In a strange sort of way, this may even be a better result for Floyd. More time to train, more time to rebuild his strength after the hip operation (although what I’ve read so far says he’s doing remarkably well) and less of the stress and grind of the 2007 racing season. As Tyler Hamilton said about his 2-year suspension,
I was pretty tired by 2004 and if you asked me then how much longer I would have seen myself competing, I might have said only a year or two,” he continued. “I was pretty depleted and unhealthy from racing so much. But one of the bright sides of the last two years has been my ability to rest and recover. I think I added years to my career and I can see myself riding for a few more years for sure.
So, even though he might not get to race, there could be a bright side to all this for Floyd Landis. He might even get a little more time to spend with his family, rather than living the gypsy pro cyclist life over in Europe next summer. And when he does get to race, he could come back fitter than before and healthier than before, and perhaps his career will go a bit longer than it otherwise might have. Let’s call that the Hamilton effect.
I can imagine what the 2008 Tour could shape up into: The battle of the champions. That could be a very exciting race to watch, as two great riders (along with their teams) battle it out through the flats and the mountains of France and beyond to see who’s the real champion. It certainly will be a well-hyped Tour.
I might even find a way to spend a few weeks in France watching the battle (although, TiVo-ing the coverage and watching without commercial interruption is also a good alternative and gives a greater range of perspectives on the race).
One thing that bothers me a great deal about the current situation: Floyd Landis is being punished before he’s even been found guilty. Sure, punish the people are found guilty of doping. And make it a harsh punishment, too. But until the whole process has run its course, athletes should be allowed to compete. To do otherwise is fundamentally unfair.
Punishing someone before they’re found guilty of a crime is as backwards as assuming someone is guilty until they prove their innocence. That may be the way the system does work (certainly it’s the way the anti-doping system does), but that’s not the way it should work.
Even if this comes to play out as Rant suggests, many will say it’s just evening up the situation with Basso, and maybe Ullrich, both of who missed years they should have contended because of ADA/UCI Richarding. Not that it is -fair- to anybody.
TBV
“Speedy and fair trial,” even “innocent until proven guilty” seem to be alien concepts to the anti-doping officials in this case. Instead, considering Tyler Hamilton’s recent experience of finishing his two-year suspension only to learn of new sanctions being considered–not to mention Basso, Ullrich, and the many other _Operacion Puerto_ riders who were later exonerated–the execution of anti-doping rules reads more like, “let’s screw with the careers of people we _just know_ are cheaters.”
I continue to feel outrage that these officials have no accountability for their actions. In fairness (a fundamental aspect of all sportsmanship), if some shoot-from-the-lip, tin-plated official or agency feels their intuition trumps due process, and costs an innocent athlete millions of dollars in income, recompense should be required. In my opinion, this should be in part from the official(s)’ personal funds, and also by the countries who put those individuals into positions of power to begin with. I think we’d soon see a very different, fairer process.
Also, to avoid this foot-dragging form of double jeopardy, I think riders should continue to ride until _proven_ guilty. Perhaps they should be tested more frequently, to insure they are not doping in races subsequent to their positive test. This would take the foot-dragging gambit off the table. By the current logic of ADA practices, a guilty rider gets a 2-year suspension, while an innocent rider gets 1 year. Excuse me?
An appropriate analogy occurs to me. If I am accused of cheating on my taxes (which, like doping, would give me an unfair advantage over honest people), I am still able to work while due process takes place. After all, I still have a family to support, as do cyclists. If I’m found guilty, I may have a large penalty or even jail time as punishment, but that happens only when I have been shown unequivocally to deserve the punishment.
As I have said elsewhere, the testing protocols, lab certification, and test positivity criteria need to be revisited, and revised or clarified by qualified, non-partisan scientists, and ADA members need to demonstrate competency with these issues. (It’s a blemish on sport and a national embarassment when ADA officials publicly make idiotic plans to eliminate B samples because they supposedly let cheaters off the hook.) The process needs to be robust and apolitical, B samples should always be tested at a different lab than the A sample, and the inherent, unavoidable false positive and negative rates need to be well-characterized at each lab, and continuously validated in-process by random seeding of control samples submitted to labs along with (and indistiguishable from) the actual samples from each race stage. Also, I favor any changes to the ADA system that attract men and women of integrity to the agencies, that remove zealotry and (will he say it? Yes he will) corruption, and that enhance sport instead of infect it and threaten to kill it.
TBV,
Certainly, it was unfair for the people accused in the Operation Puerto scandal to be banned from riding the Tour, and had they done so there may well have been an entirely different result. None of this has been fair to any of the riders involved. Not Operation Puerto, not the way the Tour handled the accusations against the riders implicated, and not the way the Landis case has been handled.
Steve,
Well said. What’s happening is outrageous.
– Rant