In some ways, I feel just a slight bit of sympathy for Travis Tygart. He’s well and truly stuck between a rock and a hard place. The WADA rules governing anti-doping cases don’t allow him to publicly comment on the Landis case (or any on-going case, for that matter, unless the accused waives confidentiality). So in the onslaught of press releases and comments emanating from the Landis side, he doesn’t have an opportunity to state his case — yet.
That opportunity will come soon enough. Well, not really. It will be almost 10 months from the leak of Landis’ results to the press to the time the hearings begin. Much of the PR battle that Team Landis has been fighting stems not so much from any damage USADA has caused, but from the damage of the initial leaks to the press and the trial by media that ensued.
And that stemmed from the loose lips of someone at LNDD, mixed with Pat McQuaid’s verbal diarrhea and Dick Pound’s poundian pontifications. None of that was Tygart’s doing. But the way he’s handled the case, that was his doing. When he gets hammered on those points, that’s to be expected.
So going into the case, ol’ Mr. T was hosed. Damned if pursued the case. And due to the notoriety, damned if he didn’t. What’s a guy to do? Tygart chose to pursue the case.
What drives USADA’s prosecutor, anyway? In an interview at Velonews (quoted at TBV), Tygart says:
We absolutely are motivated to find the truth and do the right thing in every case. Our obligation is to protect clean athletes, nothing less and nothing more. […] [W]hen the evidence does not support an accusation we drop the case. We have had over 20% of all potential cases closed.
A number of Tygart’s actions from the start cause me to question just how much this whole case is a search for the truth, and just how much is about winning and losing. I think Tygart made a tactical mistake at the very beginning, and one that the Landis camp is able to exploit, by not having another lab review LNDD’s data and their conclusions. Call the idea of double-checking the facts before pressing a case the Australian approach, if you will. The Australian approach is pretty darn good in terms of understanding and evaluating a case before taking any action — in fact, it sounds like an honest search for the truth.
LNDD has a tainted history, not just with leaks, but with cases based on their results being thrown out during the arbitration process. Recently, the Landaluce case was tossed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, based on a mistake the lab made by allowing the same technician to participate in the testing of both A and B samples.
As far ask anyone knows, Tygart didn’t take the time to have another lab review LNDD’s work before pressing ahead with his case against Floyd Landis. If he had, what would UCLA have told him? Perhaps they would have said that this isn’t a solid case, and these results aren’t a positive finding. Tygart would then have had cover to drop the case. At the very least, he would have found out that different labs have different standards, which is clearly a problem with the anti-doping world. And it will be a problem at the hearing.
Back in October, Tygart refused to provide documentation requested by Landis’ defense team. To paraphrase his response, he said, “The rules don’t require me to give you any more than this, so I’m not going to.” The lab documentation package that we’ve all come to know and love, in Tygart’s mind, was all that Team Landis needed to defend Floyd against the charges.
Now, if that’s true, it should also follow that information was all Tygart needed to prosecute the case. So how are we to account for his demand to test other B samples from the 2006 Tour? Remember that according to the rules, Team Landis would have been denied a similar request. As part of his request, Tygart told the arbitration panel that any positive results would be used against Landis. So Tygart was on a fishing expedition, searching for more evidence to use against Landis, even though Landis could not go on the same expedition to try and find evidence to exonerate himself. That’s not searching for truth, that’s trying to bolster a weak case.
And if there had been (or were) negative results from those additional tests? Well, you can bet USADA wouldn’t introduce that evidence. In their ruling, the arbitrators pretty much said that negative results would not be allowed in. So is this a search for truth, or a way for activist arbiters to craft some new anti-doping law, which is even more biased against the accused?
Instead of having the samples tested at a neutral facility, Tygart had LNDD do the job. Instead of waiting for the panel to send an independent observer (as they required), Tygart went ahead with the testing. With the leak of these supposed new results to L’Equipe, LNDD also did a number on Landis — again.
It seems to me that if his quest was merely for the truth, he would have had the samples tested at another facility — especially given that the French lab’s capabilities is one of the known angles of attack by the Landis camp. If another lab’s analysis came back with results that suggested Landis doped on those other stages, Tygart’s case would be much stronger. But to use LNDD, knowing their capabilities are an issue, at the very least seems odd. Not exactly a search for the truth, though, in my book.
Perhaps there are facets to the case that Travis Tygart can’t tell us, facets that would shed things in a whole different light. But based on the lab documentation that’s currently available, he’s going to have to work awfully hard to sell me on that idea.
Tygart also told VeloNews:
The USADA board and staff would rather see a person who actually doped walk free than sanction someone who did not dope. Our credibility and integrity would be permanently ruined if we only cared about winning cases.
And yet, Tygart seems pretty proud of their 100% conviction rate. Common sense suggests that of 165 cases, at least a few of those charges were questionable, and very likely a few innocent athletes have been sanctioned. The system is so stacked against the accused right now, that it’s pretty hard to imagine someone winning in arbitration. Point of fact, in the 34 cases that went to arbitration, USADA’s won them all. Not everyone has the resources to fight. Of the 131 who copped to the charges, how many were innocent? Truth is, we don’t know. But it’s likely that at least a few could have been innocent, but were lacking in the resources to fight back.
Judging by the vigorousness of USADA’s demands for discovery in the Landis case (even though they failed to produce documents they’ve been ordered to), and the types of things they asked for (medical records, Floyd’s Internet aliases — hello! it’s “floyd”, and financial records from the Floyd Fairness Fund, among other things), I’m not sure how their discovery request falls under search for truth. It sounds more like harassment to me.
Over at the Boulder Report, Joe Lindsey tells us that Tygart claims USADA has hired Holmes, Roberts and Owens (the firm that’s now prosecuting the case against Landis) in numerous cases, to relieve caseload pressures at the agency. Interesting. USADA has been in business since October 1st, 2000. In more than six and a half years, 34 cases have gone to arbitration. That’s an average of about 5 per year in arbitration (and another 20 or so that get settled without arbitration). For this he needs to hire outside help? I’d like to know just how many is “numerous” and how it could be that USADA’s legal staff is so overworked that they can’t handle five cases going to arbitration per year. Something’s not right about that.
Perhaps Tygart will drop some earth-shattering bit of evidence at the arbitration hearings that will prove me wrong about the case, but what I detect in Tygart’s comments to VeloNews is spin. Yes, what the Landis side releases is spin, too. But the righteous fury and indignation in their material seems more believable to me.
Travis Tygart would have us believe that his only focus in this matter is getting at the truth. His actions, however, and the actions of his hired minions, suggest to me that this is just about winning and losing. In a couple of weeks, we’ll have a clearer picture of the USADA version of the truth. Will it be believable? We’ll just have to wait and see.
Rant,
Once again, an insightful and well thought out piece of writing. Like you, there is a part of me that feels bad for the position that Mr. Tygart and the USADA have been put in, and it is my sincere hope that all of us, even those of us which favor Floyd Landis, a group of people that I am admittedly a part of, can view the proceedings with an unbiased opinion and take a determined and hard look at all of the evidence that is presented and form a good conclusion. I’m prepared to admit I’m wrong if what we are presented with proves it, I’m just hoping we see a little bit of nobility poke through the shroud of darkness that the USADA currently finds itself in due to its inability to comment on ongoing cases, and we do see a search for the truth along with an admission of being wrong on its part if the evidence proves that as well.
Unfortunately, I’m not prepared to believe that we will see any sort of a level and unbiased playing field here. The best outcome, in my humble opinion, would be to see that the actual truth was searched for, was found, and Landis was exonerated. The most likely outcome is a slanted arbitration, followed by a sanction, but perhaps a review of ADA policies and procedures. The most gratifying outcome, would be an exoneration with the current ADA system crashing and burning for the whole world to see, if only to witness some semblance of credibility restored to Floyd Landis and cycling in general. However gratifying I might find that in my own (yes, biased) opinion though, I would still much prefer to see the first outcome. Sure, I love to believe that my sports heroes are clean, but I like to believe that those in charge of policing doping in sport are clean and noble just as much. I guess we shall all find out in little more than a week.
Sincerely,
Sean
I can’t begin to feel sorry for these guys. These were all decisions that they had a hand in. Not the initial leak, but from getting the paperwork on the case and deciding to proceed – after that point, they could have had a second lab look at it. They could have done any number of things to look for the truth – instead they plowed on – looking only for their 100% conviction rate. The backlash is one unlike they have felt before, however, only due to Floyds choice of going public.
Take a look at Thorpe’s case – there was a leak that he tested positive, the authorities looked at it, and then said – uh not enough proof there to pursue. Was there a big backlash against those authorities? Not that I have heard about. He could have very easily taken the high road here and really looked for the truth. But now he is risking everything on a very flimsy (at its very best) case. He has people (like you and I) calling upon their congressmen/women to investigate what the heck he is doing and how he is spending taxpayer money. He has other people, much more knowledgeable than I, taking a good look at the evidence and saying this doesn’t even begin to approach a positive test…..
would you be willing to risk your entire livelihood on something that flimsy?
by the by, to me that action (Floyd taking it public) is the biggest indication of his innocence. If he had anything at all to hide, why go public and risk the chance that what ever he was hiding would come out – because it would come out.
Jeff,
The only real sympathy I feel for Tygart is that the situation had already spun out of control by the time the hot potato landed in his lap. Everything he’s done with the case since then, that’s his own doing and I feel no sympathy for any backlash or recriminations that Tygart might suffer. He’s made his bed, so to speak …
Putting the lab documentation and the other material out for all to see was a gutsy move on Floyd’s part. I strongly doubt that a guilty person would do such a thing. Your right, with such a move, if he’d been trying to hide something, it would be exposed, and probably fairly quickly.
– Rant
Rant:
Are you planning to go to Pepperdine? Do you know if transcripts be available or if there is some way to see the proceeding?
I agree with Jeff — Floyd’s actions don’t seem like those of a guilty person especially when you consider the amount of money he is spending!
Steve,
I wish I could go. But unfortunately, I don’t have enough vacation time at the moment. And I haven’t been able to find a way to convince my day job that a trip to Pepperdine would somehow be in keeping with their goals, needs and objectives. C’est la vie. I’ll be doing my best to keep up on the developments and comment on it as the case progresses, however.
– Rant