Some guys just can’t catch a break. Floyd Landis has probably had as bad a month since he won the Tour de France as anyone could. Right when he should be doing victory laps of the Eurocycling scene, he’s embroiled in a controversy that threatens to ruin him. And now, with the suicide of his father-in-law, he and his wife (and their families) are mourning the loss of a dear friend and loved one. Are there any other shoes out there left to drop?
I’ve been doing a bit of background reading today, taking the time to go through the executive summary of the Vrijman Report, as well as two very interesting articles on VeloNews called “Legally Speaking — with Bob Mionske” in the August 10th and August 17th issues.
All three of these should be required reading for anyone interested in the Landis affair. Mionske, a lawyer, gives a very good (though somewhat technical) overview of the issues surrounding doping cases. From what I can tell, he gives Landis a decent shot of overturning the findings from the Châtenay-Malabry lab. But there are a number of challenges ahead, not the least of which is the whole process itself. Take a look at the articles in VeloNews to get a glimpse of just how complicated and convoluted the process can be.
Mionske outlines some of the defenses that Landis and his lawyers can use, not the least of which is the breach of protocol that the UCI, WADA and the Châtenay-Malabry lab have all committed. While Pat McQuaid may think the UCI hasn’t broken any of its own rules, Mionske lays it out there for all the world to see. Same goes for WADA and Châtenay-Malabry.
And although I’ve read the news reports of independent investigation of the Armstrong scandal last year, I’ve not had a chance to read Vriman’s report until now. At this point, I’ve only gotten through the executive summary (it’s not exactly light reading), but it seems clear that the UCI, WADA and the French lab all committed some serious breaches of protocol in the “research project” that blew up in the media last year. There are many questions raised by the report, including why a number of the players at WADA, the UCI and Châtenay-Malabry were less than forthcoming in dealing with Emile N. Vrijman, the independent investigator.
One thing that really jumps out for me is the behavior of the lab in the whole Armstrong affair. How could this lab still be accredited to perform anti-doping tests? There are enough breaches of security, protocol, along with a number of conflicts of interest that this lab should not in any way be involved in anti-doping testing.
And all this comes up again now, because it’s the same unsavory cast of characters involved in this latest go-round. Once the whole Landis affair is settled, regardless of the outcome, there should be some serious consequences for the various officials and lab staff who have not followed their own rules. The lab should definitely lose its accreditation where anti-doping testing is concerned.
But back to the original question: Can Floyd win? I think it’s possible he can, but even if he wins he’s already lost more than he might ever hope to regain. There are many people who have already branded him a cheat. Those people won’t rally around him once his name is cleared. There are many companies that will not want to do business with him. Will he ever truly be able to clear his name?
Once this is all done, I think Floyd and his legal team should go after some of the officials who’ve maligned him up to now. That might teach those folks to stay within their own rules for handling anti-doping cases. Then again, maybe not.
Rant,
I think you’ve gotten distracted from the facts and process that Floyd is really facing. There’s nothing in the hearing process that is going to be sensitive to the complaints about how the case has been handled. All that really matters are the “facts” of the tests themselves. Mionoske talks about the way this bites, and I’ve discussed the painful implications of this at TBV in burden of proof problems . The rules are: (a) You don’t get to challenge the process unless it directly affects the facts of the tests; (b) You can’t challenge the validity of the test, which is presumed valid and correct.
It seems the only thing you can do is present facts, not conjecture, that prove what is reported in the tests is natural, and not from prohibited substance. By fact, I mean something concrete, such as a report on the tumor that was removed, after which your readings became normal. (See “you can get off if you are a horse with cancer” at here). You can’t just offer guesses about what might have happened – “I might have had a fetal twin”, “I might have eaten contaminated meat” don’t fly without proof. Where were Hamilton’s own tests that showed continuing and ongoing false positives because of his fetal twin? None were offerered, and the CAS ruling followed observations (a) and (b) completely.
The process issues are side shows, as I discussed in one of my earliest posts, stay on target .
I think it’s still possible to win, but only if Floyd focusses on the right things and bring his own counter-facts to the table.
TBV.
The head of the Chatenay-Malabry laboratory, Jacques De Ceaurriz was responsible for this quote:
“It’s foolproof. This analysis tells the difference between endogenous and exogenous. No error is possible in isotopic readings.”
This false statement was quoted by the press repeatedly, and was the basis for many articles which assumed Floyd’s guilt. This is the real ultimate source of the false information that lead to the complete destruction of Floyd’s reputation. If I were Floyd, and I were looking for someone to sue, I’d start with this guy.
tom
tom