In the days immediately following the 2006 Tour de France, as rumors began to swirl about a positive drug screening test, but before the athlete in question had been publicly identified, Pat McQuaid, the president of the UCI, confirmed the rumors to members of the media. On July 26th he described the situation to reporters as a ‘worst case scenario’ adverse analytical finding.
While not specifically naming Floyd Landis, McQuaid’s comments led to a very clear conclusion: The winner of the 2006 Tour had tested positive for some banned substance. Within a day or two, Phonak (Landis’ team at the time) confirmed that yes, it was Floyd Landis who tested positive.
So began Landis’ trial by media. While the anti-doping system has clear rules on how such cases should be handled, McQuaid violated the rules by publicly identifying the rider involved. McQuaid continues to deny his responsibility, telling the San Jose Mercury News:
Q: So you’re comfortable with how this is being handled.
A: He blames everybody but himself. At the end of the day he has a positive A and B standing against him. He has to account for that. All I did was follow the regulations. It wasn’t the UCI that released the name of Floyd — it was his team. It doesn’t get away from the fact. The fact is, there is an A and B sample. I won’t prejudge on his innocence or guilt. I wouldn’t do otherwise. He wants everything to be public — that’s his choice. We have to wait for the actual case and hear two sides of the story.
Technically speaking, McQuaid is correct. But even if Phonak hadn’t released Landis’ name, his comments were clear. And who he was referring to was clear. Whether he spoke Landis’ name or not, he released the information. Phonak merely confirmed what reporters already knew. And they knew because of Pat McQuaid.
Early on, when asked about his comments identifying Landis, McQuaid justified them by saying that there was a known leak at LNDD, France’s national anti-doping lab, and that he was releasing the information before it found its way into the press through that channel. Whether or not the information would have been leaked, it was wrong of McQuaid to make the comments he did to the press. His argument for releasing the information defines the word “disingenuous.”
McQuaid also told the Mercury News:
“Every athlete who tests positive blames the system and somebody else. Floyd is no different. Floyd has very expensive lawyers and PR people. He’s doing an epic number. The public needs to understand they are hearing one side of the story.”
Perhaps the public is hearing one side of the story, but early on the only side of the story they heard sang the anti-doping agencies’ tune, and many people made up their minds based solely on that information. Landis’ reputation had long been shredded by the time he mounted his own campaign to educate the public about his case. In fact, just the release of information by McQuaid, himself, was enough to cause almost irreparable damage to Landis, his reputation and his ability to earn a living in the future.
Landis responded to McQuaid’s comments, releasing the following statement through Michael Henson, his spokesman:
“Pat McQuaid’s comments to the San Jose Mercury News on February 17 regarding my efforts to clear my name highlight the lack of quality leadership at the UCI, and his wish to deny me the basic rights to defend myself and protect my livelihood. At crushing personal expense, building a team of professionals to support me is the only way I have to fight against an unfair system and unsubstantiated allegations. The UCI should be apologizing that its athlete’s must go to such lengths to try to protect their basic rights, not criticizing them for the expense they are incurring to defend themselves.
Mr. McQuaid started my trial by media when he made his leading comments about a ‘worst case scenario’ adverse analytical finding on July 26. His organization continued to subject me to a public show trial when I had no information with which to defend myself by leaking test results to the New York Times, announcing the results of ‘A’ samples before ‘B’ confirmations, and refusing to inform me of the results of my ‘B’ sample before they announced it in a press release.
Mr. McQuaid should suspend all public comment on my case until it is resolved in an appropriate and professional manner.”
If Pat McQuaid wishes to blame someone for how the Landis case has been playing out, perhaps he should look in the mirror: He’ll find his answer staring back.
Rant, I see a parallel in the pattern of unaccountable behavior by WADA and USADA officials in the following report about systematic insurance company hardball action in personal injury cases on CNN recently: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/09/insurance.hardball/index.html
They use the strategy of “Deny, Delay, Defend” while publicly labelling the defense attorneys as high priced scoundrels who routinely rip off the system. The 3 D’s in the Landis case are: 1. Deny access to the facts and any inaccuracy in their testing, 2. Delay any possible resolution to exhaust finances, and 3. “Defend” (actually. prosecute in this case) vigorously if the case eventually goes before the arbitration panel. Public personal character assasination of the opposing party (Landis) and labelling the attorneys as greedy and unprincipled has been bought wholesale by juries and the public, they found.
Through this strategy the insurance industry has saved billions while premiums have not decreased. If the strategy works in the Landis case, these ADA agencies will become even more aggressive and intransigent to protect their power, imo.