Spam, spam everywhere …
For those who tried to post comments yesterday or the day before and ran into problems, my apologies. I tried adding a plugin to WordPress that requires users to enter an additional word, as a way of preventing comment spam. While the system I had in place beforehand intercepted the vast majority of spam (and unfortunately, the occasional legitimate comment), a few spam comments still got through, which I then had to manually delete.
The new system worked great, as far as keeping spam comments out. But it also didn’t let the folks who post comments here on a regular basis leave any new comments. So, the new system has been removed, and the old system restored until I can find something that can do what I’d like: Keep the spam out and let the good comments in.
There’s a ton of plugins for WordPress (the system that powers Rant Your Head Off), so eventually I should be able to find one that works as intended. Sorry for the inconvenience, everyone.
Judging Floyd, A T(b)V Series, Continues
The latest installment of the Judging Floyd series is out at Trust But Verify. In this installment, Judge Hue and TBV look at some of the implications of the recent ruling by the arbitration panel in the Floyd Landis cases. The precedent set by their ruling, regarding the testing of the additional B samples, is very disturbing, as Judge Hue and TBV illustrate in a very well-written and well-thought-out article. The arbitrators left themselves some wiggle room to not admit the results in the ruling, saying:
The Panel makes this advance evidentiary ruling subject to further submissions from the parties at the time of the proffering of the evidence at the arbitration. The Panel in making this advance ruling reserves the right to affirm or re-determine the ruling at the time of the request to admit the evidence as part of the arbitration proceeding.
But in the very next paragraph of their ruling, they delineate all the ways evidence could be admitted. And that’s where Judge Hue’s and TBV’s analysis of the precedent being set is important, not just for Floyd Landis, but for all who have the misfortune to follow in his footsteps. In a nutshell, the arbitrators have opened up a whole new avenue that anti-doping agencies can use, should they be presented with another Landaluze-like defense.
The implications are that USADA has found a whole new way to get around a violation of international standards by one of the anti-doping labs and still find “evidence” that could result in a doping conviction. And what’s most disturbing about the precedent, to me, is that it makes the system even less fair and less balanced than it was before.
Judge Hue’s and TBV’s latest article is a must-read for anyone interested in the Floyd Landis case, as well as anyone interested in how the anti-doping system continues to evolve.
Rallying The Faithful
Yesterday evening, Brian Rafferty sent a note (you can read a copy of Rafferty’s message over at TBV) to all those who’ve donated to the Floyd Fairness Fund encouraging them to write their elected representatives in Washington, and to influential members of various committees to draw attention to the unfairness of the current anti-doping system, and how USADA, in particular, operates.
As an organization created out of a Federal legislation, and receiving the lion’s share of their funding from Congress, USADA should be accountable to our elected representatives for how they conduct business. Because they act as a quasi-judicial agency, and because they are funded by public money, it is not unreasonable to expect them to play by the kind of rules we’re familiar with. In particular, the system should respect the rights of the accused, be founded on a presumption of innocence, and ensure that a fair hearing is conducted prior to doling out punishment to someone accused of a doping offense. Right now, an accused athlete must prove his or her innocence in a system that is very much rigged against them.
While writing our elected officials may not have a direct effect on the outcome of Landis’ case, it may well have an effect on how USADA handles cases to come. And, with the glare of the public spotlight on how they do business, it may moderate USADA’s behavior. That said, I’d encourage you to take the time to write your representatives and let them know your concerns about our current anti-doping system and how it tramples on the rights of accused athletes.
Take the time to go to the Get Involved page at the Floyd Fairness Fund web site, and contact a few of the elected officials they suggest. Floyd’s case hangs in the balance right now. But just as importantly, now’s the time to fix the system so that no other athletes have to endure the special kind of Hell that Floyd Landis has been subjected to since last July.
One Final Note
Check out Atown’s report of yesterday’s Town Hall meeting in Austin, Texas, which he sent to TBV. There are some jaw-dropping details about the current Landis B sample testing at LNDD that I don’t have a lot of time to comment on right now. They’ve only been testing things for a day now, and already the whole process appears to be screwed up. More later.
