Over at Trust But Verify there’s an interesting rant talking about the CAS decision in the Inigo Landaluce case. Quite the discussion going on, too. Welcome to the rantosphere, TBV.
Since reading about the decision yesterday, something struck me as not quite right. After seeing TBV’s commentary, things started to come into focus. I suspect that the CAS made the right decision in this case, but by taking the easy way out rather than looking at the larger issues involved. So justice was done, but it could have been done better.
When I think of arbitration, I think of two sides going to a neutral party, presenting their cases and letting the arbitrator or arbitration panel make a judgment based on the facts and arguments presented. So when a panel punts by, in essence, saying “well, the experts disagree” and not considering that part of the case, I feel like they’ve abdicated some of their responsibility to the parties coming before them.
Of course the experts on the opposing sides are going to disagree. You don’t think either side is going to bring in experts who will back up the other side’s opinion, do you? That’s why people go to arbitration in the first place. To settle disputes. In this case, part of the dispute has to do with how scientific data is gathered and interpreted.
The rule the panel cites in their decision, that the lab violated an established standard by allowing the same person to be involved in the analysis of the A and B samples, was pretty clear-cut. That’s enough to toss the case. For those not in the science world, it seems like a small technicality. In the scientific world, it’s not so small. It has to do with the credibility and reliability of the results. Without credibility or reliability, the data doesn’t mean anything.
I also feel that the CAS’s comment regarding Landaluce’s innocence (or not) was a gratuitious shot, not necessary to be stated and not necessary to their ultimate verdict. What would’ve made me more comfortable with the decision would be a statement to the effect
Upon consideration of the scientific arguments presented by each side, we find blah, blah and blah-de-blah.
In addition, we recognize that protocol X.Y.Z requires that the A and B samples be tested by separate individuals. However, in the Landaluce case, the same technician was involved in both tests. This invalidates the results, therefore we find that no doping violation occurred.
As I said, I think the CAS came to the right decision and that justice was done. I just think they could’ve done better. It would be a great benefit to all concerned if the CAS did take the time to consider the scientific arguments.
By putting the science to the test, we ensure that the anti-doping system has internal checks and balances, and we ensure that the science behind the testing is valid and correct. Nowhere in the world of science is someone’s theory accepted without data to back the theory up and without repeatability in other experiments by other scientists. The same needs to be true for the science behind the anti-doping tests. Without that rigor, we have a system that will surely fail.
———-
Moving on. Brian Cookson, president of British Cycling, quoted in the International Herald Tribune
“This will be a historic event, in the heart of one of the world’s great cities, a fantastic opportunity for our sport,” British Cycling president Brian Cookson said. “We really do not want to see this tarnished by a repeat of the doping scandals of 2006, so, frankly, we urge all those with involvement in various investigations to stay away.”
Right. I can see the scene at the start of the prologue in London next July. As riders enter the staging area, an official comes up to them and makes sure each rider has never, ever been on the wrong side of the law, the rules, or their even their local football (soccer to those of us Stateside) coach. Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen, the perennial voices of the tour are commentating for BBC, Versus, and whatever other networks still cover the Tour.
“Well, Paul, what do you make of the prologue?”
“Phil, it’s a bit cocked up at the moment. All the riders seem to be missing their starts.”
“Rumour has it that the officials are screening out riders with any hint of doping problems.”
“Actually, Phil, one of our cameramen at the starting area tells us they’re going further than that. Apparently no one who’s ever had a speeding ticket, been cited for jaywalking, or who’s ever driven on the wrong side of the road after a few pints at the pub is being allowed to race.”
“Paul, we’re getting word that Oscar … wait … no … he’s been disqualified for cheating on his taxes.”
“Well, Phil, we’re getting down to the final few start times. Everyone here is wondering, will we see someone ride today?”
“Paul, we’re getting word now that the last rider is showing up at the starting gate. If he can just get off the line, we just might … no … no, it’s not going to be. The final rider has been ejected because he spilt the headmaster’s tea back in the fifth form at the Western Road School in Lewes.*”
*True story. The part about spilling the headmaster’s tea, anyway. To be told another time.
“There you have it, Phil. It’s official. The Tour de France will not run this year because not a single squeaky clean rider could be found.”
“Paul, we have an interesting sight coming up the road. Truly amazing. There is one lone rider on the course. He looks strangely familiar, but older and slightly pudgy. Let’s get a closer look.”
“Phil, you’re right. The Zed-Kickers helmet is a throwback to the late 80s or early 90s. He can’t be going more than 30 kilometers per hour. Can we get a camera to zoom in on this lone rider?”
“I don’t believe my eyes! It’s Greg LeMond, coming out of retirement to try for his fourth Tour de France victory … ”
———-
Tomorrow night Channukah (the Festival of Lights) comes to a close and Christmas will shortly be upon us. Many will be traveling to see family, friends or just for a well-deserved vacation. Me, I’m heading to one of my ancestral homes (St. Louis, MO) for a few days. May everyone have happy holidays, whatever holiday you celebrate and wherever you may be. I’ll be back early next week with more rants.
Seriously, it was the right result, though still not without suspicion. But that’s my take.
Oh, and Phil and Paul will get pulled out of the commentary box for being fans first and journalists second.
On the topic of unfairness but also the slow march of process, the authorities show no fear or favour and take down the cripples too.
Phil,
Agreed. Right result, though not without suspicision. If Landaluce was doping, he’s just been told “Go forth and dope no more.” There’s a part of me that would like to know whether he was guilty but because of the lab’s error he’s been set free, or whether he was innocent all along. I think the CAS could/should have looked at that more, and delved into the science of it more, but that’s just my point of view.
Phil and Paul pulled for being fans first? Fair enough. But I fear that viewers stateside won’t get commentary with as much knowledge and background about the sport’s history. Perhaps you have better commentators down under. If so, can we work out a deal where they broadcast to both countries?
Interesting story you’ve linked to. I guess the moral is that regardless of who you are, if you need certain medications you’d be best advised to get that TUE beforehand.
– Rant
I love Phil and Paul more for their lack of coherence than their journalistic integrity.
Rant, you apply far too much logic for any of your ideas to work in cycling. You need to start throwing in some power plays, posturing and random insulting more often. Or throw in something draconian.
Wave while visiting your ancestral home. For not only is it my ancestral home, but it is my current home.