A few days ago, North Carolina Attorney General Roy A. Cooper dropped all charges against the three young men suspected of raping a stripper during a party in 2006. In doing so, he took the very unusual step of publicly pronouncing them innocent. In a legal system where the best most people accused of a crime can hope for is a verdict of “not guilty,” Cooper’s statement is exceedingly rare.
Tonight, Lesley Stahl interviewed Cooper and the three lacrosse players at the heart of the scandal in a story shown on the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes. And in that interview, there are statements which echo another scandal that’s rocked the American sports world — the Floyd Landis case.
In the story, you hear about a prosecutor run amok, a case based on sketchy evidence (evidence so thin as to be nonexistent) of a crime that, as far as North Carolina’s Attorney General is concerned, didn’t occur. And of course, the old standby — trial by media — is featured, though not directly addressed.
The young men discuss their reactions to Cooper’s announcement, how the case has affected their lives, where they will go from here, and what feelings they have about the original prosecutor, Mike Nifong. Attorney General Cooper goes over his reasons for dropping the case, and the investigations that led to his decision to drop all charges.
It’s a story worth watching. If you didn’t record it, you can watch the video of the story here.
And Now The Testing Begins
In a few hours time, testing may begin at LNDD on the B samples from Floyd Landis’ other tests at the 2006 Tour de France. Sometime in the next few weeks, the results will be back, and eventually we will all find out whether they provided the results that USADA was looking for (most likely in a news story leaked to L’Equipe).
One rumbling I’ve heard, though I haven’t been able to verify, is that the arbitration panel may not have found an independent observer to be present during the testing. It will be interesting to see if the testing gets delayed as a result, or if they found an independent expert at the last minute who will be available to observe the lab’s work.
Another rumor on the mill is that things are going to get very interesting (in the old Chinese curse sort of way) over the next few weeks. The question is, will we hear about whatever maneuvers occur, or will the arbitrators keep a lid on information flowing to the public? Last week’s release of USADA’s discovery request must have caused more than a bit of heartburn in Matthew Barnett’s law firm and over at USADA headquarters.
But, of course, the rules prevent them from publicly commenting about on-going cases, so they have been unable to respond. And so, the question becomes, will USADA and their outside counsel continue to play by the rules, or will they take their gloves off and let loose with a barrage of invective against the Landis camp?
Time will tell, of course, but it would be better PR for USADA to continue playing by their own rules, rather than to come out swinging. It may seem like a raw deal that they can’t speak publicly, but consider the raw deal that brought this case on to begin with. Certainly, we can’t blame USADA for the original leaks of information to the press about who tested positive, or what his supposed results were, but they do bear some responsibility for how long the case has dragged out, and how acrimonious the situation has become.
Looking back at USADA’s recent discovery request, the only information that may have any relevance to the hearing is the request for Landis’ medical records. But, and this is a big ol’ but, if they really think that the “defenses” that were attributed to Landis in the early days are actually part of what his team will present at the hearing, then they haven’t been paying attention. Or they have, and like some rumors suggest, they’re intent on bankrupting Landis.
In the first instance, they’d be awfully incompetent attorneys (good news for the Landis team), and in the second, they’d be downright evil. Sure, by asking for everything under the sun medical-history-wise, they’ll be able to address any possible defense. Perhaps, as invasive as it is to Floyd’s privacy, he should give them access to all those records. After all, if it sends them off on a snipe hunt, and USADA and their henchmen waste time preparing for the wrong defenses, that’s their mistake.
Or maybe USADA really does know the case is lost, but by dragging Landis through the muck, and causing him great expense, they’re gambling that he won’t have the resources to fight their appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport should Landis win. Or, maybe they know the case is ultimately lost, but they’re going to sling so much muck on Floyd that he will be forever tainted. If it’s the last possibility, they must be incredibly naive, as the trial by media he’s already endured will leave a taint in some folks’ eyes no matter the outcome. If that’s their intention, they shouldn’t have bothered. Mission already accomplished.
One Last Thought
I’m just wondering: When all is said and done, will 60 Minutes finally cover the Landis case? Because, if Floyd’s found “not guilty” (or exonerated) by the arbitrators, and if that decision is backed up by the CAS, then he’s certainly due that kind of coverage. It would be the start of rehabilitating his image in a large segment of the public’s eyes, just as tonight’s coverage may be the beginning of the same for the three Duke lacrosse players.
