Tuesday Two-Fer

AFLD Test Results?

Today’s Cyclingnews reports that the independent reviews of AFLD’s procedures and equipment have come back. Citing an article in L’Equipe, the article says that the test related to Floyd Landis’ Stage 17 B sample, as well as an audit of LNDD’s IRMS machine validated both aspects of these procedures as they relate to the Landis case. (See Update, below).

No other details were provided in the article, other than that the results had been forwarded to Landis’ defense team.

What, exactly, has been validated and how it’s been validated is unknown. If L’Equipe’s reports are correct, then AFLD seems to have gotten backup documentation that is more likely to help USADA than Landis, and is more likely to make challenging the test results difficult come the time the case is heard in France. If that’s the case, then M. Bordry’s request for these audits has done a remarkable job of CYA.

M. Bordry shows up American anti-doping officials and the way they’ve handled the Landis case by sharing to any evidence they expect to use in the case with Landis and his defense team. Of course, he’s saying to them, “Here it is. Read it and weep.” Then again, that’s speculation based on a report from the “esteemed” French sports rag that is perhaps better suited to wrapping fish and chips than reading. But if it turns out that the article is correct, this revelation could wind up being more ammunition for USADA than for Team Landis.

Note: As of this writing, Cyclingnews is the only publication running the story in English, based on a search at Google News. Perhaps other media outlets will publish more information later. Or perhaps the L’Equipe story on which it’s based is pure conjecture. Time will tell.

Update: Marc left a comment to this article that tells us Cyclingnews’ understanding of the original L’Equipe articles is not correct. In the L’Equipe’s articles, no information is given about what the reports contain. M. Bordry refused to comment on the contents of the reports.

Ivan Basso: Tip O’ The Hat, Wag O’ The Finger

One of the problems that plagues Floyd Landis’ attempts to win the hearts and minds of sports fans as he faces charges that he doped at the 2006 Tour de France can be best summed up in terms of Ivan Basso’s admission yesterday that he was involved in the Operacion Puerto affair.

Perhaps it was a guilty conscience what got the better of Basso. Or perhaps it was the realization that DNA testing would soon enough verify that some of the blood bags found in Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes’ office did, in fact, come from the superstar Italian rider. (And unlike other anti-doping tests, the science behind DNA testing is pretty unassailable these days.) Whatever motivated Ivan Basso to finally `fess up, he should be commended for having the courage to admit his involvement in the affair.

Unfortunately, it would have been better if he’d spoken up sooner. Like right after his name was linked to the scandal. While I’m all in favor of innocent until proven guilty, and also in favor of giving someone the benefit of the doubt when they protest their innocence, athletes who protest their innocence loudly only to admit later that yes, they did actually dope, make it harder for others who might actually be telling the truth when claiming they’re innocent.

Because so many insist that they are innocent and then are shown to be guilty, people automatically assume that a person accused of doping but who doesn’t admit to it right away must just be lying. So, while I’m willing to give Basso a tip of the hat for having the courage (or guilty conscience) to stand up and admit to his past, I must also give him a wag of the finger for falsely claiming he was innocent this whole time.

Here’s the thing: When you’re caught with your hand in the cookie jar and denying that you were nicking one of Mum’s devilishly good chocolate chip cookies, the smudge of chocolate on your face gives you away. Best to admit to your transgression and take the punishment right away than to try lying your way out of trouble. Because, when you lie about it, you only make it worse.

Same for doping cases. If you know you’re guilty and it’s only a matter of time before the authorities are going to have the goods on you, it’s best to just come clean. Dragging things out only drags your own name through the mud and drives up your own legal bills. So Ivan Basso is to be both congratulated and scolded about his coming clean at this time. I’ve seen a couple of suggestions — so far unsubstantiated — that Basso’s admission may earn him a reduced suspension. If that’s the case, he’ll be back to competing sooner, which means he’ll be back to earning a living sooner.

Perhaps Basso’s motive was to avoid financial ruin fighting the case. Knowing full well he would be bound to lose (and it’s damn-near impossible to refute a DNA match, so it’s pretty much game over once that happens), Basso may be taking the easier way out, thus preserving the millions of euros he’s received in salary and sponsorship over the years. So maybe the calculus was that even if he sits out for a couple of years, or is banned permanently, at least he’ll be financially set for some time to come. Basso’s admission may reduce his own suspension in the near future.

It’s hard to know whether Basso’s sudden admission will have any actual bearing on how the Landis case will be decided. Mostly likely, it will have no direct impact. What goes on behind the scenes, however, might be another story.

If more and more truly guilty athletes take Ivan Basso’s approach and come clean (sooner rather than later, however), then when an innocent athlete is (or in Landis’ case, was) charged with a doping offense, perhaps people wouldn’t be quite so quick to jump to the conclusion that the accused athlete must be guilty. Then again, that may be too much to hope for. The damage caused by those who loudly protest their innocence only to admit later that, yeah, they’re guilty and they knew it all along, may be irreversible.