Just What Is The AFLD Up To, Anyway?
A number of interesting comments have been posted regarding my previous article, There’s Something Happening Here. Is the hearing on February 8th going to be an “open discussion” as some articles have suggested? If that’s meant in the same vein as two diplomats saying that there were “frank and open discussions” (translation: we told each other using very colorful terms of vernacular exactly how we felt), I’d love to have a tape of that meeting. I’m sure it would be most enlightening.
Is the AFLD in cahoots with USADA and WADA to try and force Team Landis to show their hand, so that USADA will be better prepared to refute that defense come whenever? Could be. If not directly, then it would certainly be an interesting consequence of the hearing, and certainly not one that’s escaped the notice of Travis Tygart or the rest of USADA. I’m sure it hasn’t escaped the notice of one Richard Pound, either.
Or, are the French authorities trying to get out in front of the North American proceedings so that they don’t look like a vindictive bunch going after Landis after the USADA and CAS appeals are done? Sounds very possible. There’s certainly a lot of concern about the good name of the Tour being sullied by this latest round of allegations. I wouldn’t put it past various organizations to try and keep athletes who might tarnish the impeccable image of the Tour away next year. (The director of British Cycling, who’s involved in the planning for the intial stages of the 2007 Tour de France, pretty much said exactly that.)
I certainly wouldn’t put it past Pierre Bordry and the AFLD, especially if they have a sense that Floyd Landis has a good shot at getting cleared. The folks at AFLD know many things that we don’t. Most importantly, they know the arguments against Landis, and they have a sense of the arguments in favor of Landis. There’s a very good chance they have a sense for exactly how things will play out, and the AFLD may be taking steps to ensure that there is some sort of sanction against Landis as a way of saving face.
Bad enough for the AFLD that LNDD gets tagged for not following protocol in the Landaluze case. It would be many times worse if LNDD is shown up in the Landis case. And the leadership at AFLD knows, in their heart of hearts, just how strong a case there is against Landis. After all, they do own LNDD. It’s pretty easy to imagine they may be attempting to do some damage control.
When You Assume, You Get Things Wrong — Way Wrong
If you’ve been following the Duke Lacrosse Team story, you know that Collin Finnerty, David Evans and Reade Seligmann were charged last spring in the alleged rape of a stripper who performed at the Lacrosse Team’s party. After a big flurry of media attention, the story faded into the background, re-emerging every once in a while as new developments occurred. Like a huge uproar over the racial aspects of the case. Or the changing story told by the alleged victim. But most people assumed that the players had been charged because DNA evidence implicated them in the assaults.
Actually, it turns out the DNA evidence did no such thing, as Lesley Stahl reported tonight on 60 Minutes. It turns out that the lab performing the tests had found evidence that a number of men had some form of intercourse with the victim that night. However, there was no evidence — DNA or otherwise — that showed the young men charged in the case had done so.
Worse, the lab left that bit of information out of their report to Mike Nifong, the prosecutor handling the case. Dr. Brian Meehan, who was in charge of testing, spoke with Nifong at least twice and informed him of the result a week before the prosecutor charged the young men. But Dr. Meehan failed to put it in the report.
And Nifong failed to inform the defense attorneys of this little detail. That’s called witholding exculpatory evidence. When the alleged victim recanted her story recently, Nifong was forced to drop the rape charges, but Finnerty, Evans and Seligmann still face sexual assault and kidnapping charges.
Had this evidence not come out, and had the victim not recanted her story, there’s every possibility that a great injustice would have been done to these young men. As it is, they still face charges, and whatever else happens this story will haunt them the rest of their lives. If only the prosecutor had followed the rules back in April 2006.
Abuses happen in every system. But when the rules are clear and the system is open, there’s a better than even chance that the abuses will eventually be uncovered. That’s what’s happening in the Duke case. And with any luck, all charges against Finnerty, Evans and Seligmann will be dropped.
Contrast this to Floyd Landis’ situation. The agencies charging him with doping violations are not bound by the same rules, and in fact the entire anti-doping process is a very closed system. Athletes accused of doping get very limited access to information or evidence against them. Floyd Landis has been given the bare minimum documentation required by the World Anti-Doping Code. Even though his attorney has asked for material that may contain exculpatory evidence, USADA has denied his requests.
The onus is on the defense to find and produce the exculpatory evidence. And the lab or the anti-doping agency can simply flat-out refuse to provide such information, or even deny that it exists. In a closed system, there’s a very real possibility that such material would never see the light of day. And there’s the very real possibility that miscarriages of justice could occur as a result.
Whether you believe someone is guilty or not of doping, or of a heinous crime, the accused should be entitled access to all the evidence, not just the evidence that happens to be convenient for the prosecutor. Without that access it would be safe to say that justice won’t be done.
Lance and Sanjay Want To Save Your Life
Whatever else you can say about Lance Armstrong, he’s done a great deal to raise people’s awareness of cancer over the last 10 years. Those Livestrong armbands are almost ubiquitous these days. I’ve been wearing one since shortly after they came out, in part due to my father’s fight with cancer. And I’ll continue to wear one, in his memory.
This past Saturday, Armstrong and Dr. Sanjay Gupta appeared in a show called Saving Your Life. The show featured information on what each of us can do to reduce the risk of cancer, and reduce the risk of dying from cancer.
While the show doesn’t break much new ground in the information it presents, it is an important reminder that there are a number of things we can all do to minimize our risk, and to maximize our chances of survival. And the cost — both financial and physical — of catching these awful diseases early is much, much less than the cost of treating cancer in its later stages.
Saving Your Life is well worth watching, and the advice the show offers is well worth heeding. Kudos to Lance Armstrong and Dr. Sanjay Gupta for reminding us all of what we can do to live longer, healthier lives.
