Due to some work obligations, only now am I able to join the party that is the commentary on today’s press conference where Floyd Landis, Michael Henson and Arnie Baker appeared before reporters to discuss the upcoming hearings that will begin on Monday at Pepperdine University Law School.
If you want some good run-downs of the press conference, start with the summary at Trust But Verify, they’ve got a very complete description of the questions asked and answered. Bonnie DeSimone over at ESPN.com and Michael Hiltzik of the LA Times also weigh in with good, balanced stories.
A number of bloggers have already commented. For a good round-up, TBV’s got those links, too.
There were, as you may already have heard, two bombshells that went off in the press conference.
The bigger of the two was when Landis confirmed that yes, he had been offered a deal in the early days of case. The deal? Rat out Lance and you’ll get the shortest suspension ever doled out in cycling. One month. The person who made the offer? Travis Tygart, who contacted Howard Jacobs to see if Landis would take the bait. When? Sometime in early August.
Landis told reporters that he found the idea that USADA would do harm to him and his reputation merely to get at Lance so offensive that he never even responded. He went on to say that it goes to the character of the people prosecuting the case that such an offer would be made.
Shortly after Landis’ press conference, Lance Armstrong spoke to reporters via a conference call. As Bonnie DeSimone reported at ESPN.com:
Armstrong, long dogged by unproven doping allegations, spoke to reporters on a hastily arranged conference call from Austin, Texas, shortly after Landis made his statements. While Armstrong expressed some weariness that the topic was rearing its head again two years after his retirement, he said he was neither surprised by the news nor irritated with Landis for revealing it.
“I think Floyd has to make a case for himself,” Armstrong said. “This says a lot about USADA’s methods, their tactics and their confidence in their case. He has a scientific case to fight, but it’s also a case of ethics and morals. This makes USADA look petty.”
Armstrong said he was aware that USADA had approached Jacobs with a deal based on providing information about other athletes but did not know his name had been mentioned specifically.
“I think it’s absurd,” Armstrong said of the alleged attempt to solicit damaging information about him. “There’s nothing to find. They’ve looked everywhere and can’t find anything. The other thing I’ve said is that it will never go away.”
The other bombshell from the press conference is that Landis will be launching an ethical complaint with the IOC against Dick Pound for Pound’s behavior and comments related to his case. Michael Henson, Landis’ spokesman, cited Pound’s comments about Nazi frogmen in an Op-Ed piece published in a Canadian newspaper, along with his comments to the New York Times saying that Landis should have “been violating every virgin within 100 miles.” These kinds of statements show that Pound plays fast and loose with the facts, and that he makes flatly defamatory statements, despite WADA rules that require officials to refrain from commenting about on-going cases.
Henson said he expects to file the case within the next few days, and he hopes that the IOC will go further than giving Pound a slap on wrist.
Landis said he is hopeful that he will get fair hearing, but he also noted that no accused athlete can get a fair hearing under the current system unless he or she goes to extreme measures, as he has done. To date, he has spent over $1 million on his defense, an amount he wouldn’t have been able to afford were it not for the outpouring of support that his legal defense fund, the Floyd Fairness Foundation, has received. The total cost will be even more, depending on the cost of the French proceedings and any appeals.
Whatever the outcome is, Landis said, he will be proud of what he did. “I know that I won the Tour. I will go into [the hearings] feeling like a winner.”
Landis went on to say that he sees this hearing as an opportunity for the three arbitrators to demonstrate to the legal community and the arbitration community that they can make a decision based on the facts, based on the science, all of which demonstrates that he won the Tour fair and square. And in the end, having done that, the arbitrators can help change the system for the good of all athletes.
The lab has leakers. The head of WADA has been “rebuked” by the IOC for making defamatory statements and continues to shoot his mouth off. The arbitrators don’t follow the arbitral process. So it should come as no surprise that USADA (1) pre-judged Floyd, (2) hatched a plan to use him as a pawn and (3) is willing to pervert their own sanctioning system in order to achieve headline-worthy (and, to me, delusional) goals.
How is it that the people who are supposed to protect the ethics of sport turn out to have such despicable morals? When is it time to stop thinking the problem is “the system” and start thinking that the problem is “the people” who run and operate it? How can we believe that justice will be served when so many of the prosecutors fail so often to behave ethically? And when (oh Lord) will we, the public, have the chance to bitch slap the people and empty the bank accounts of the ADA’s?
Just for kicks, I looked up the definition of the word “evil” to find “(1) MORALLY BAD; profoundly immoral or wrong, (2) HARMFUL; deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset, (3) MALICIOUS characterized by a desire to cause hurt or harm”. Now I ask you, is it MORALLY BAD for the lab to consistently leak information? Has Pound been HARMFUL to Landis? Have the arbitrators been MORALLY BAD by the way they decide things (and, maybe more importantly, by the way two of them spend time hanging out together DURING a case they are empanelled to decide)? And, is Tygart MALICIOUS, MORALLY BAD and HARMFUL to offer deals and then, when they are refused, make absurd discovery requests that, at a minimum, violate my civil liberties? I don’t think I am stretching the definition of the term to say that the ADA’s fighting Landis are evil — do you?
Steve,
What was it Forest Gump said … “Evil is as evil does”? Or something like that, anyway. 😉
– Rant
I wonder why Howard Jacobs didn’t reveal Tygart’s “deal” back in August? Seems like it would have made a bigger impact back then. Now, assuming it’s true, it just seems malicious. Unless, now they have proof…?
I think the timing is better now. Letting this out right before the proceedings will increase the number of observers questioning the intent and believability of the prosecution during the trial. Had it been said back in August it would just be old news and of no value.
Steve,
You have to remember that the system was largely constructed by the people who are still inolved. It arises from at least a few factors
1. Trying to get national and inernational sports organizations to sign off on a common agreement that turns some authority over to someone else.
2. Trying to come up with a system that would be accepted by sports organizations located in countries with radically different legal systems and concepts of appropriate procedure. Comment: That is probably why the system has no mechanism for building a common body of law on evidence and procedure for the first level of hearings and why the appeal is a fresh, start from the begining hearing that will work against the background of Swiss law, as I understand it.
3. The system was constructed by people that were convinced that either other people were doping or that in order to exel in a sport you had to be doping. Comment: The fact that there are dopers in the sports is well established. Further, this has given relatively free rein to people like Dick Pound who are similar to McCarthyites: they see dopers on every bicycle, track and other sports venue. If you excell, then you doped.
I find it interesting that the zealots seem to be losing confidence in the system (which I feel is biased against the athlete). That is the only explanation for floating the idea of the “non-analytical positive” as a basis for suspension. The fact that they still appear to be chasing Armstrong also illustrates this. They are SURE he used performance enhancing drugs, they JUST CAN’T PROVE IT. Terribly frustrating for them. Terribly dangerous to an athlete whose sample is mishandled or generates a false positive.
Is there a problem with doping? Yes. Should there be an effort to police the athletes? Yes. Should that system be based on solid science, tests that will yield the same results at whatever lab performs them, shields the athlete until truly definitive results are obtained and then lays out the proof on the table for scrutiny and evaluation by an impartial body using the same body of rules and procedures so that the same conclusion would be reached irregardless of the location? Yes. The system in place now does not meet these standards.
pcrosby
Pcrosby and Rant:
Thanks for the perspective, I hadn’t thought about the difficulty of coordinating across various legal systems with differing values and procedure. My only experience with law outside of the US comes from a Swedish arbitration which was settled (after years of exchanging briefs) when our side found very damaging evidence. While it seemed like the Perry Mason I watched on TV, the process did operate a bit differently. And, after we found the “smoking gun”, I was surprised by our attorney’s concern that we could still loose! Nonetheless, the idea of fairness and operating beyond reproach was consistent and I sure hope we can count on somebody on the Landis prosecution side and / or the arbitrator’s acting with honor — but, I’m not going to hold my breath.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment about how people are SURE Armstrong doped amid all the evidence that he did not. Many of the guys I ride with are all SURE Lance doped and, as a result, also think that Floyd probably did. When pressed to defend their viewpoint they offer noting of substance, lots of innuendo and go so far as to act like I the naive one. It’s worse than “guilty until proven innocent” — their attitude seems to be “guilty even after proven innocent”. It’s one thing when this guilt-ridden viewpoint comes from your Sunday morning ride group, but, it’s another when it comes from the people who are leading the fight against doping. I read the Vrijman report. Can we assume that Tygart did as well? To me, the report damned Lance’s accusers — for the inconclusive proof offered, for the poor scientific methods, for their disregard of ADA process and, mostly, for their poor judgment. Even if Tygart didn’t mean Lance (when you read Floyd’s statement, he says Tygart asked for information about “somebody more important” than Floyd) how can it be appropriate to assume Landis’s guilt in August of 2006?
I know this is odd logic, but, if there were fewer accusations and less contention, the system and the people who running it could claim they were being effective. So it’s a wonder why they start with the “everybody (even retired people) is guilty” attitude. I agree with you — McCarthism has morphed into the sports world. Should we call it Poundisim?
Steve,
Sorry for the delay on that comment. Some weirdness happened, and it wound up in moderation by mistake.
– Rant