One Week To Go

Things seem relatively quiet in Landis-land in the final days leading up to arbitration hearings that are slated to begin on May 14th at Pepperdine University’s Law School. No major stories broke over the weekend. I’m sure that both sides are beginning to sharpen their cases ahead of the hearings. With the exception of the town hall meeting tonight at Hawthorn’s in San Diego, I’m not aware of any further appearances by Floyd as part of the Tour of Innocence.

A couple of interesting threads have popped up on the Daily Peloton Forums, one which asks whether or not Landis is winning his PR campaign, and the other regarding possible lines of defense for Team Landis.

I think the one that will evolve into the more interesting discussion over the next week will be the one on possible lines of defense, started by rational head. The discussion is still in its infancy (as of this writing), but over time, I think it will glean out some of the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches. I’m sure that somewhere, Team Landis (and specifically Howard Jacobs, Maurice Suh, Arnie Baker and their other experts) have already war-gamed a number of scenarios and are figuring out strategies to address claims from the other side, or to attack the other side’s arguments.

By the same token, I’m sure that Tygart and his henchmen have done the same thing. Certainly, their broad requests for discovery (denied, I hope) suggest that they are looking at all avenues of attack, and a few avenues of defense.

Forget the Mayweather vs. DeLaHoya boxing match, the Landis hearings are going to be the real championship bout this month. And unlike a boxing match, it’s estimated that it will be going on for up to 10 days. (By the way, the winner of the Mayweather-DeLaHoya bout was the guy named Floyd. Not that that sets a precedent or anything.)

The discussion of whether Landis has won the PR campaign is interesting, to a point. And how you determine whether it’s won or lost depends on what your expectations are for such a campaign. The reality is that Landis was screwed PR-wise from the first leaks about his A sample results. Once that got into the press, a good number of people immediately convicted him of doping, at least in their own minds. As further leaks occurred and comments came from highly placed people in the anti-doping establishment, the damage increased. And given that the Landis side had no details of the exact results until the end of August 2006, six weeks or so after the Tour ended, there was a long time where they were trying to defend Landis based on limited information.

All that’s to say that in the PR war, Floyd Landis has been in a come-from-behind situation similar to where he was at the beginning of Stage 17. In the public’s eye he’s been convicted of doping, never mind the facts or the process. How many reports have we seen where the reporter incorrectly states that Landis has already been stripped of his title? Or that if he loses he’ll be the first winner to be stripped of his title? (On that second point, he would be second. The winner of the 1904 Tour was the first person to be stripped of his title, and always will be.)

Some mainstream media have picked up on the Landis story, but the majority of coverage has been in the cycling press and the blogosphere. That’s pretty much to be expected. Only about 60,000 people are licensed racers in the US, and perhaps another couple of hundred thousand follow bike racing in one form or another. That’s not a huge percentage of the American population. Even though winning the Tour is a huge deal, cycling doesn’t get the attention that other sports do. It probably never will.

And unfortunately, a new doping scandal in the cycling world only gets a bit of attention from most big media outlets in this country before they move on to the next Barry Bonds scandal/story. The number of doping stories in cycling seems to make the mainstream media think they’re dime-a-dozen, best told once and never discussed again.

But some in the mainstream media have been following closely. The Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, USA Today and others have run stories about the case. In some cases, like Michael Hiltzik’s coverage at the LA Times, doing extensive pieces about flaws and problems with the current the anti-doping system. Is that due to the Landis PR campaign? Perhaps. But one thing’s certain, without Floyd Landis and his team speaking out about how the anti-doping system works, would anyone be the wiser?

So, has the campaign changed minds? Hard to say. Has it solidified the views (pro or con) of those who’ve closely followed the case? Probably. Will it lead to changes? As a response to the Landis story and to Michael Henson and company’s public relations efforts, a number of people have written their elected officials to express concerns about how USADA is run, how they spend public funds, and how the anti-doping system works. So that’s a positive. What happens in the long term is hard to predict, but my hunch is that the advocacy for change will have some effect on USADA and/or the funds they receive from the Federal government.

If Landis wins his case, perhaps it will open some eyes in the mainstream media. Up to now, many in the mainstream press have pretty much taken the word of the anti-doping officials without question. Someone tested positive? Guilty! The tests are foolproof? Absolutely! There’s been no questioning or even the slightest attempt at balance for many of the stories written. Why? Because the reporters who don’t question are lazy, and that’s in part due to how many doping stories we’ve seen over the years.

But if Landis wins, that will prove the system fallible. And any reporter worth his or her salt should stop and take a moment to assess their part in the coverage, and what he or she will do differently the next time. Would you count that as a success for the Landis PR campaign? I would, at least in part. But mostly, that would be due to the success in Landis’ other battle: the legal one.

The PR campaign may not have changed many minds, but it’s kept the Landis story out there, and occasionally drawn attention to some of the more egregious actions by USADA and others. And it’s certainly helped the Floyd Fairness Fund raise money. As Landis to a reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

Fifteen years of my life had been focused on cycling. Now, everything in my life has been dictated by this. When it came down to it, it became clear to me who my true friends were. I’ve been very fortunate. I would be close to a half-a-million dollars in debt without donations.

That’s a significant outpouring of financial support. And if other donors are like me, the money has come in small amounts, not a few megadonations. Although, to be sure, depending on what you call a megadonation, there have probably been at least a few.

Moving on. Over at Trust But Verify, TBV and Judge Bill Hue have put together a Form Sheet (the latest installment in the Judging Floyd series) that you can use once the hearings begin to understand how the case is progressing. In it, they discuss what we should expect to see, what could happen, and what various developments and scenarios might mean for the outcome of the case. I plan on printing out a copy and keeping it by my computer to check off what happens as the hearings unfold.

So a week from today, the real action begins. If you’re going to be following developments closely, tune in to TBV. He will be at the hearings, filing reports. Although I won’t be able to attend the hearings (something called the day job and limited vacation time get in the way), I’ll be offering commentary as quickly as I can, based on each day’s developments. Stay tuned, in a week the real fun begins.