Arbitrator’s Ethics
Over at Trust But Verify is a post that cites various ethics rules for arbitrators, which seem to apply to the Landis case and the May 1st ruling by the panel from which Landis’ chosen arbitrator, Chris Campbell, was excluded. As of this writing, there are 25 comments to the post. Some interesting, some a bit confused. But to give the confused folks a break, at least one of them stated that he’s new to the Floyd Landis case.
The case has gone on so long, that there’s a huge amount of information to digest in order to understand what’s going on. If you’ve been following the case for months, you’ve assimilated the information by now. Newbies, on the other hand, are starting almost from scratch, save whatever they’ve heard in the mainstream media, or stumbled upon on the Internet, or heard from friends. Makes me wish I’d written a series of articles called “The Floyd Landis Case For Dummies” to give people just tuning in an overview and enough background to understand the current discussions. Oh well. Can’t do everything.
Anyway, the article is interesting in light of the panel’s May 1st decision and whether the decision was properly made. And some of the comments to the article raise a number of interesting points. The one that catches my eye is this: Can Team Landis request that Patrice Brunet be removed from the case? Should they do so? (After all, it’s the old case of “be careful what you wish for.”)
One of the things that gives me pause when considering such a move is this: What if Team Landis’ request were denied, and Brunet was kept on the panel? That would seem to all but ensure that the panel would find against Landis — regardless of the evidence. Brunet would be pissed, and you can be pretty sure who he’d take it out on.
Coincidence? Or … ?
Sergei Honchar will not be riding the Giro d’Italia starting on Sunday because he has a … cough! … “cold.” Perhaps he does. More interestingly, Honchar was one of three riders tested after Stage 19, the final time trial of the 2006 Tour de France. And as ORG alludes to in a comment to this post at TBV, Honchar was one of the three riders selected for anti-doping tests afterwards, because he won the stage. Also tested were Floyd Landis (who regained the yellow jersey that day) and another randomly-selected rider. [Read ORG’s post at Steroid Nation from March, here.]
Now, one of the ways this gets interesting is that back in March, word came out that some of the Stage 19 tests were being done at the same time as the Stage 17 tests. And we all know what happened with the Stage 17 tests. What people may not remember is that among those revelations in March was that one of the sample numbers in Floyd’s lab documentation from Stage 17 — a sample number originally thought to be a typo — was actually a sample number from one of the riders tested after Stage 19. And what is known is that it wasn’t Landis’ sample number from Stage 19.
So who’s sample was it? Honchar’s or the other rider? Did results from Stage 19 get mixed into the Stage 17 report? Has the wrong person been fingered for doping?
I recall a comment from ORG on one of my posts that seemed to suggest that someone on the Landis defense team had spoken to the other rider. And that the other rider felt terrible about what was happening to Floyd. Was that out of guilt, or just sympathy for a compatriot in a world of hurt?
So, does Sergei really have a cold? Or is something else going on?
TBV left a note that he would be examining the story later today. It will be interesting to see what more might come out.
Ponying Up Another Donation
With the hearings set to begin on Monday (barring any last-minute delays or maneuvering), the initial part of the Floyd Landis case will be drawing to a close in the near future. That’s not to say, however, that the case will be over. While it may be some time until the arbitrators announce their decision, depending on how the case goes, Team Landis may yet have to fight another day.
Especially if Floyd wins. Dick Pound and his roving band of doping frogmen from WADA, along with Travis Tygart and his Harley-riding USADA’s Angels motorcycle gang will doubtless appeal the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Such action would further drag out the resolution of Landis’ case until later 2007 or early 2008 in my estimation, and it will be a severe financial hardship to continue the fight. But Landis’ fight should not die for lack of funds.
For that reason, I’m ponying up to the donation bar again. If you’re inclined to believe in Landis, and want to help with his defense — or if you want to see that whatever the Floyd Fairness Fund morphs into is adequately funded — consider making a donation, too.
Ensuring that the anti-doping system changes to respect athletes’ rights can be one positive outcome from this hellish experience, regardless of which way the decision goes in Floyd’s particular case. Someday, another athlete who may be innocent will be thankful that Floyd Landis stood up to a crooked system and agitated for change. Because without change, that person just might be railroaded by another kangaroo court, too.
And Buy The Book, Too
And while you’re at it, consider purchasing a copy of Positively False. It’s another way to support Floyd and to learn more about how he really won the 2006 Tour de France.
My understanding of the process for getting a panel member removed from reading comments posted over at TBV in the last few days would be that the request would be approved or denied by the AAA. What I’m not exactly clear on is what their relationship with the ADAs is. How inclined would they be to even consider throwing out a panel member?
I was already thinking that this would be a bad move in that it would be very unlikely to go through and may be viewed as petty in the court of public opinion and media, and you bring up a very good point in that if it doesn’t, things would be that much worse. Dare I say, it may be better to let it play out and be exposed for the blatantly biased system that it is in the hopes that the supposedly “neutral” arbitrator decides to be just that.
I am not 100% convinced that Floyd’s innocent at this point, though that may be partly due to my wanting to believe Basso as well and as such I may have become a bit disenchanted to everything given his recent bombshell announcements.
That being said, given everything I saw at the Dallas town hall meeting, everything I’ve read before, and what’s come out in the last few days… I am 100% convinced that LNDD can’t be relied upon to accurately track or test samples and 100% convinced that the ADAs are not out for the truth or giving Floyd, a fair chance at defending himself. For those reasons alone I feel justified in supporting him.
If 1) AAA is truly independent of WADA and 2) if Team Landis is fairly certain Brunet will vote against him and 3) if they have more than one reason for making the request and 4)if they think they’ll get press that exposes some of the problems at hand, then I’d say go for it!
My take on the Honchar “case” is that we only MAY have a number mixup but not a sample mixup. If this were a sample mixup, and provided a ‘negative’ IS negative and a positive IS positive, then Honchar’s A sample is positive, but Landis’s B sample is still positive, yielding the same results as Honchar’s A sample … this is not going to fly.
How that S17 A sample “mixup” connects to Honchar to riding in the Giro, is beyond me.
Drew,
I can understand how reluctant many are to believe Floyd is 100% innocent. Given what’s out there, and given other cases, that may be a leap of faith. What makes me lean heavily towards 100% innocent, however, is the evidence, itself. It just doesn’t add up to a convincing case. It certainly wouldn’t be convincing in a criminal trial. The problem with the lab, and with the system, is that both need to be above reproach. Unfortunately, neither the lab nor the anti-doping system falls into that category. Perhaps some changes will happen in the future to rectify that.
Will,
Kinda makes you wonder what (if any) bombshells will be dropped at this afternoon’s press conference. With this case, nothing would surprise me.
Pommi,
You have a good point. The problem with mixups in the documentation, though, is you never know if it was just the documentation that was mixed up, or the samples themselves. If it was only the documentation, then as you say. But if the samples became associated with the wrong rider, it wouldn’t be too far a stretch to see how both the A and B samples would agree. The results would match, but the person identified with the results would be incorrect.
To everyone,
It’s going to be an interesting day.
– Rant
Who is having the press conference today?
Bicycling magazine quoted a USADA (I believe) official saying in so many words that if a case gets this far (past the initial independent review) then the athlete is guilty without doubt. This official went on to say that Floyd’s team is trying to win in spite of the fact that Floyd is guilty. This sort of thinking makes me see why USADA can feel justified in doing whatever it takes to win since it was established by that first review that Floyd is guilty.
Rant — did I get that last paragraph right? If so, would you please fill in the name of the official I’m paraphrasing. Thanks.
I keep thinking this whole process is filled with lawyers and I wonder if they teach them in law school that the truth is nice (if it works in your favor) but winning pays the bills.
Will,
Landis is holding a press conference at 2 p.m. Pacific Time. I’ll be listening in, but due to a business obligation, I won’t be able to write it up until later.
I scanned the latest Bicycling mag (just got it last weekend) and that sounds like a paraphrase of something Tygart said, when he was talking about cases in the general sense — but implying the conclusion that you arrived at.
Heaven only knows what some law schools teach. Clearly, some of them teach winning as being more important than seeing that justice is done.
– Rant
Further to your comment on the need for change. At DPF there are some targets for applyig pressure in the form of letters and e-mails. Some,, such as the person in the White House, will be useless. Letters diffused among the 500 federal legislators will not even register on their radar.
When I did the long distance Palotta AIDS rides there was always a large contingent of riders from D.C., a great many of whom were Congressional staffers. I have to hope that some of the concerned folks at least monitoring the forums are among their ranks. I also have to think that there are a few legislators who were amateur or professional athletes who would understand the problems with the system even if they are not cyclists. If someone could provide leads on effective contacts, then the chance of accomplishing something will be improved if folks’ reaction can be better focused and optimize the chance that it will get the attention that it needs.
pcrosby
PC,
Excellent point. I don’t know any staffers on the Hill these days, unfortunately. If anyone out there knows someone, drop a comment so we can target our efforts towards sympathetic eyes and ears.
– Rant
You can also buy Arnie Baker’s e-book “The Wiki Defense. How the French Lab (LNDD) & US Anti-Doping Agency Botched Floyd’s Test.”