The Games USADA Plays

Gamesmanship has been a large part of the ongoing Floyd Landis saga over the last few days. Certainly, USADA employed a bit of gamesmanship to exclude Landis’ observers from viewing certain parts of the B-sample testing going on at France’s national anti-doping laboratory, LNDD.

It took more than a bit of gamesmanship to hatch the rather sinister idea to create a rule that Landis’ observers could only be present if USADA’s observers were. In looking over the arbitration panel’s ruling on the B-sample testing, I don’t see any requirement of that sort, so Landis’ observers should have been allowed in on Sunday. But, as we heard on Monday, that was not the case. How convenient, then, that USADA’s observers (puppetmasters?) decided to go home before the testing was done.

So what is USADA up to, anyway? On the surface, it seems pretty obvious. USADA’s out to fix the results. But I have a hunch that there’s something deeper going on. The arbitrator’s ruling gave USADA free reign to go get Landis B-samples tested, and pretty much have those samples tested at any lab they would choose. So why choose LNDD?

Well, for one, USADA will be able to argue that the samples were subjected to the same testing protocols and that those protocols produced consistent results. But given the laundry list of improprieties and misinterpretations of the original data by the lab, this might be a dangerous gambit. If the Landis defense team can show that LNDD is incorrect in their application of the WADA standards and protocols, then the data will be tossed — as will, most likely, the case.

Was USADA looking for a sympathetic lab, one that might be convinced to bend the rules in their favor? If so, LNDD was the perfect choice, as they have their own reputation (and possibly their accreditation) to think about. USADA controlled the choice, they could have gone anywhere. Why LNDD?

How about the fact that LNDD is renowned for its leaks? USADA needs to get the publicity machine turning in their favor, as they’ve been taking a beating (and rightly so) over the past few months for how they’ve handled the case. And they’re getting it not just from Landis supporters and the public, they’re getting it from other anti-doping agencies, like France’s AFLD. Remember them?

AFLD’s little power play in February contributed to setting a hearing date in the US. And they pulled that little ploy partly out of frustration with USADA and how slow they’ve been to move the case forward. And you know what? AFLD owns LNDD. So choosing LNDD might have been to mollify the French anti-doping agency. And, it might well have been about generating some good PR for the anti-doping side, given LNDD’s sieve-like nature when it comes to confidentiality.

And we’ve seen just how effective the leaks were. Within hours, the story that Landis had more positive doping tests had circled the globe. Mind you, we’ve not heard any of the real evidence that the stories are true, we’ve just heard the echoes get louder and louder. This is precisely what USADA intended, as it causes the slumbering media (with a few notable exceptions) to wake up and convict Landis a second time in the court of public opinion.

In psychology, there’s the concept of primacy over immediacy. In other words, what you heard first is what you’ll remember or believe. Give the devil his due: If Tygart’s plan all along was to test at LNDD so that the results would be leaked, things have worked out quite well. People have again been reminded of Landis’ initial “results” and many have convicted him all over again. And more than a few who were on the fence may have made up their minds now, too.

Tygart and company are hoping to use the evidence to railroad Landis. That seems pretty clear. Where it gets tricky is, given USADA’s ignoring of the arbitration panel’s requirement for independent observers, whether the panel will allow the evidence or not. And here’s where the shadow games come in.

What if the evidence isn’t allowed and Landis wins round one? USADA’s ultimate goal is a win. Whether that comes in round one or round two doesn’t matter. Perhaps they’ve already figured that the evidence won’t be allowed at the hearings in May. And perhaps they already know they will lose the case in May because the evidence won’t be allowed.

What then? Well, as far as gathering the evidence goes, the horses have already been let out of the barn. When the appeal goes up to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, it’s like starting a whole new trial, with the panel not required to consider any of the original trial’s evidence, reasoning, or outcome. They start again at square one.

And, in that case, USADA could perhaps find a way to introduce the evidence, even if it’s been barred from the May hearings. And even if the manner in which the evidence was acquired is held against USADA in the May hearings, will the CAS panel take that into account on appeal? It seems as though the system allows an extreme amount of leeway to the prosecutors, as far as procedures and rules goes. So much leeway, in fact, that it often smacks of allowing the prosecutors to break the rules in order to “win” doping cases.

So, the skirmish over this testing won’t be done at the Pepperdine hearings in May. This evidence — so-called — may well haunt Floyd Landis and his legal team for some time to come. And that’s also part of the games USADA’s playing. Despite Travis Tygart’s protestations to the contrary, USADA’s actions make it clear they’re out to destroy Floyd Landis.

As the old saying goes, sometimes you have to lose the battle in order to win the war. Tygart and company may well be counting on losing this round, but with their ill-gotten “evidence” winning where it ultimately counts — on appeal.