… but not necessarily good luck
In this day and age, I’m thankful to have a steady job. The way the economy has been going, that’s no small accomplishment. But there are the occasional days when I wish I had more time to go for a ride, or to spend writing up the latest and greatest outrage in the world of sports and doping — or politics for that other blog.
Today was one of those days. Sometime in the late morning, I noticed the first stories hitting the web about the arrest warrant that was issued for Floyd Landis. The first stories described it as an “international warrant,” based on a comment from Pierre Bordry, Bordry apparently misspoke, and later in the day corrected his statement to note that the warrant is merely a “national warrant.” Which means that if Landis sets foot on French soil, he could be arrested and brought to a judge in suburban Paris to answer questions about what he might know of the alleged hacking into France’s anti-doping laboratory’s computer systems in the latter part of 2006.
Bonnie D. Ford, writing on ESPN.com, provides a bit more background:
The Floyd Landis case is actually part of a much larger corporate cyber-crime investigation involving a Paris-based consulting group that may have paid intermediaries to breach various companies’ security. The French judge summoned Landis and Arnie Baker, a retired doctor and longtime coach and adviser for Landis, to court for questioning last May but neither appeared.
Landis isn’t being charged with a crime, as far as any of the news stories seem to say. They just want to talk to him. And to Arnie Baker, apparently. Some stories are suggesting that there’s a warrant for Baker’s arrest, too. And just like with Landis, it’s a national warrant, not an international warrant.
“I can’t speak for Arnie, but no attempt has been made to formally contact me,” Landis said in an e-mail to the Los Angeles Times. “It appears to be another case of fabricated evidence by a French lab who is still upset a United States citizen believed he should have the right to face his accusers and defend himself.”
Makes me wonder — what if the French authorities had actually contacted Landis and arranged a conference call or to take his deposition in California? Would Landis be willing to talk? What the heck, let’s give the man a shout.
Me: Quick question: If the French authorities had contacted you and made arrangements to either do a conference call or send someone to California to ask whatever questions they have, would you talk to them?
FL: Sure.
Well that was easy.
Update: I also queried Arnie Baker about what was going on, and he sent me the following statement:
Months ago I offered to be interviewed through the applicable US-French Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty and the French authorities have not done so. Regardless of how the French choose to proceed, because of renewed interest, I want to make it clear once again: I never hacked into, and never helped or hired or asked anyone to hack into, the LNDD (French anti-doping) computer system.
And I’m just some run-of-the-mill blogger. If I can track both Floyd Landis and Arnie Baker down, how hard would it be for the folks in France? Seriously.
Seems like it’s a self-defeating thing to issue a summons or subpoena and expect that someone will, of their own accord and at their own expense, fly from California to Paris. On the other hand, during the Malibu hearings, some of the testimony was done by conference call, when one of USADA’s witnesses couldn’t make the trip to the US. Seems like an easy enough solution.
And, if I recall, it’s the kind of solution that Arnie Baker proposed in a letter to French authorities last year. Not that they took him up on the suggestion. On a hunch, I’d hazard a guess that Arnie Baker’s answer to the question I asked Floyd would be the same. Sure, come on over or arrange a conference call, and we can talk.
I have no idea why the news is coming out today, given that the warrant was issued more than two weeks ago. The timing seems a bit odd. Especially for a case that’s bigger than just someone hacking into an anti-doping lab for whatever reason. Is someone using the Olympics and all the sports coverage going on as a way of garnering a bit more drama and publicity? No clue.
There’s a simple solution to what the authorities in France seek, and it’s in the answer I got just a bit ago. Perhaps the judge and prosecutor in Nanterre should take that idea under advisement. Seems like a reasonable solution. Not that they’d listen to me, though.
Meanwhile…
So there’s a few things I didn’t get to in my last post. The saga of Tom Zirbel, for one. Zirbel’s B sample came back positive for DHEA a while back, which is really no great surprise. Not to besmirch Zirbel’s reputation, but it’s more rare for a B sample to contradict the original results. Lots of reasons why that would be the case, and not too many details in Zirbel’s case to hazard a guess as to what caused the results. A couple of weeks ago, Zirbel posted this on his blog:
I expect USADA to come back with a 2 year sanction any day now but I’m tired of waiting for them so I decided to let everyone know what’s going on. There will probably be a hearing in a few months whereas I will proclaim my innocence. We all know the drill! How many times have we been through this with this sport? I even secured one of those lawyer fellas to help me through this. We are still attempting to figure out how this happened and I’m optimistic that we’ll have an answer in time for the hearing.
I don’t know if they’ll be able to figure things out. Maybe. But I’m guessing that a two-year hiatus from pro cycling is in the cards. On an entirely different note, take a moment to check out Zirbel’s latest post, which is a description of his first bike race just seven years ago (give or take a few months).
Who’s doing the testing at the Tour this year?
Beats me. I haven’t seen an announcement on which lucky lab will be testing the drug screening samples taken at the 2010 Tour de France. But there were some stories a while back that the Amaury Sports Organization and the International Cycling Union agreed to have a lab outside of France do the testing. That means France’s national anti-doping lab won’t (as of this writing) be the ones checking to see which riders are doping and which aren’t.
So who will it be? Will the Tour go with the lab of choice for the French Open (Montreal)? Or, will it be the lab in the UCI’s hometown of Lausanne, Switzerland? Or, will it be some other lab? Perhaps I’ve missed it, but time will tell.
The cynic in me wonders if this change of labs is just the ASO playing the various warring parties against each other. One year the race is run under a national sanction, instead of under a UCI sanction. The next the UCI is back in the mix. This coming year, LNDD is on the outs. Who knows what drama will occur in the ongoing soap opera known as the Tour de France. Stay tuned. Things could change between now and July.
And entirely unrelated to cycling … well, sort of …
Regular reader eightzero sent me this link, which is so chock full of grist for the ranting mill, I’m not sure where to start. Let’s see, Florida State University is rewriting their record books after (gasp!) an academic cheating scandal. Whoa, like that never happens in college sports! And my dad was never told to pass a football player in his class or else our season tickets at Purdue would be in a worse spot than they already were. (Actually, that wasn’t really possible — the corner of the nosebleed section at Ross-Ade Stadium wasn’t a great view.) The old man didn’t give in. And we didn’t buy season tickets to Purdue football after that.
Samsung’s disgraced former chairman is being welcomed back as a member of the International Olympic Committee? Double-shock! Really? The old boy’s club hasn’t given up just yet? Who’d’a’thunk? (And speaking of the old boy’s club, the UCI’s Pat McQuaid was recently welcomed as a member of the IOC. Can’t wait to hear what kinds of exchanges he and fellow IOC member Dick Pound will have, now that they’re on the same team, so to speak.)
Track results from the 2004 Olympics being reconsidered, after a US athlete tests positive for steroids (she only ran in the prelims, however, and not the finals)? Wow. I would never have guessed.
Well, it’s getting a bit late. Time to sign off — for now.
the visibility for this is surprising to say the least.. The French system just won’t quit until he’s in Jail or Dead..
Let this be a lesson to other cyclists.. don’t fight the system.. innocent or not..
atxanon,
You are confusing 2 different things, a doping act (breaking sport rules) and a computer hacking of a governement agency (breaking civil laws).
Landis was judged by 3 different juridictions (2 US) for his doping infringement.
Police and justice are seeking to find the commissionner of the hacking, the hacker, who put the back door trojan, beeing already arrested.
Rant,
if French Justice believe that Floyd or/and Baker are culprit, they have no reason to question them by mail or teleconference.
Floyd can no be taken as serious for his AFLD conspiracy, a such behavior of governement people would a disaster for them if beeing caught. What would be their interest? To destroy Landis? but he is already down… If he would have (and be able) raced TDF, the easiest way would be to ban him by a simple request to ASO.
Floyd can deny he was formely contacted but I doubt that Arnie didn’t speak with him especially after you contacted him when that story broke for the first time last year.
Being under a laws threat, while wanting to race TDF or on french soil require to act of your own to solve the problem.
Of course, Landis is probably moraly down since a while conducting him to more stupid decisions.
His nightmare would only terminated by saying the truth.
Jean C, that’s your take. My take is, I could book a hotel room in Paris as “Floyd Landis”, and in three years someone would issue Floyd an “International Arrest Warrant” for my unpaid room service!
Jean C.
“His nightmare would only terminated by saying the truth. ”
Would that truth be the actual truth? Or what “you” believe to be true and want to hear? If you’re innocent, why would you lie and admit to something you didn’t do? Everyone is asking for him to “admit” the truth.. well, he already has.. next question.
I’ll agree with Jean C and disagree with William Schart on a narrow point. Floyd’s defense team would have been happy/motivated for genuine hacked information on his case, and other LNDD cases, to fall into their laps. While it may not have been admissible in his USADA hearing, the documents paint a damning picture of the serial fallibility of LNDD’s testing procedures, results, and reporting. Even if inadmissible, it’s advantageous to be armed with the truth.
I’ll disagree with Jean C that “Landis was judged by 3 different juridictions (2 US) for his doping infringement.” 1) the French jurisdiction didn’t attempt to make any ruling on doping charges. Floyd agreed with the French court not to race in France for a period of time as a result of being accused. It was an arrangement and the proceeding was certainly outside the spirit of the WADA code that reportedly sought to unify the process. 2) The USADA hearing was related to a US jurisdiction, loosely. Two (2) of the three (3) arbitrators were not US nationals. 3) The CAS appeal was not related to a US jurisdiction, though much of the appeal was conducted in a NYC law office. Summary: (3) jurisdictions, (1) improper jurisdiction, (1) loosely US related jurisdiction controlled by WADA.
The country of France is not currently perched on another planet. Why then, the disconnect from normal and sensible communications in matters of official government business? While news is readily transmitted around the globe in digital/electronic format, it’s improper and amateurish to notify a principal of an investigation that his presence is desired via a virtual, and not well aimed, shotgun blast. If they want to speak with Floyd, they need to notify him in an official manner and provide return contact information. Considering the distance, alternate arrangements should be able to be made. Insisting Floyd appear in person via the news media is grandstanding.
I don’t have a good clue as to why they want to speak to Floyd and Arnie? Neither is the likely hacker. Neither is likely to have paid for the services of a hacker. It’s much more likely that a disgruntled LNDD insider or otherwise offended hobby hacker transmitted the information to member(s) of Floyd’s team. Either way, it’s interesting Bordry and members of the French judicial system seem to want to keep drawing attention to the airing of dirty laundry that is ultimately an embarrassment to them. I suppose everyone has their fetishes and kinks, this one (while hopefully not particularly sexual) is still up there on the strange-o-meter………….
http://wadawatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/floyd-whats-next-isle-of-saint-helena.html
I present THE TRUTH by Msr. ZENMUD!
Jeff:
True, they might have been happy to have damaging information fall in their laps, but would they actually resort to hacking to obtain such?
Are the French authorities merely looking to get Landis/Baker on French soil in order to simply question them as part of their investigation or are they planning to charge them with a crime? I think here in the US, if you want to compel someone to submit to questioning, you get a subpoena not an arrest warrant, but then things may be different in France, or we may have a problem in translation.
They might have an interest in compelling them to come to France for questioning as perhaps there might be different rights. If they were questioned here on US soil, they could easily refuse to answer any questions they didn’t want to, or even get up and walk out, and the French authorities would probably have little recourse. In France, things might be different.
Or this simply could be some grandstanding by the French authorities. But could they hope to gain. There are other options to prevent Landis from racing in France, so even if they heard he was about to land a spot on a team which might actually hope to take part in this year’s edition, I don’t think they’d need to go to this resort to keep Landis out.
Jean,
One thing I’d point out, M. Bordry’s ravings notwithstanding, is that most media reports suggest that the warrants for Landis and Baker have to do with the fact that they failed to honor at least one summons to appear, which sounds to me like not honoring a subpoena in the US courts. The court then issues the warrant to bring the person in to testify. But other than failing to appear, the person may not be guilty of a crime.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but that seems to be the situation in Nanterre. They failed to appear. The judge and prosecutor want their testimony, for reasons undisclosed (with the exception of what M. Bordry has indicated, which may or may not be correct). A couple of anonymous sources have told me that neither one is considered a suspect right now, though. So in terms of getting testimony, my suggestion of a conference call, or sending someone to take a deposition in California seems to satisfy what they’re currently after. YMMV.
Rant,
The warrant for Landis is for “taking part to computer system breaking” and for “concealment of stolen goods”.
I suppose it’s the same for Baker.
For me Justice has enough evidences or clues about their direct or indirect involvement, using stolen goods being a fault itself, they wanted to question them leading to a possible arrestation. As pointed by William, they have, if I am right, no interest to question them off of France.
As I pointed when we heard that story for the first time, if Baker were really innocent, he missed the opportunity to say the truth about his use of stolen documents. Worse he or someone else forged some of them.
I am pretty sure that neither Landis nor Baker are the real hacker but one of them is probably the commissionner or at least accomplice, especially if Baker’s IP was used to access LNDD computers.
Jean,
Do you have a link to where you’re getting the content of the arrest warrant? So far, I haven’t found that information. To the point of “concealment of stolen goods” I find that a bit odd. Team Landis hardly concealed that they had received the documents. They said so in at least two press conferences that I participated in, as I recall. Also, they were right there in Arnie Baker’s slide shows, from very early on. And Baker was careful to hedge his bets as to the authenticity and accuracy of the documents.
I wouldn’t put too much faith in the supposed link via Baker’s IP address. A while back a spammer was bouncing his/her emails through one of my domains, making it look like the messages originated at my ISP’s server address for that domain (not RYHO). We put a stop to it, but it was an annoyance for a day or so. The same trick could easily have been played by someone who wanted to cover their tracks and shift the investigation elsewhere.
Not to get into rampant speculation, but I can imagine a few other folks — in cycling and a couple of other sports — who might also have a motive to make LNDD look bad. And I remember that one early suspicion centered on another US cyclist who will remain nameless. I’ll admit, however, that the timing of it all certainly casts suspicion in a certain direction.
When is Landis ever going to get some peace? It’s time for the French to let it go, already. There are so many new targets they can choose.
Debby,
Your guess is as good as mine. Plenty of new targets, for sure.
I got the content of the arrest warrant on Le Monde
http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2010/02/15/floyd-landis-sous-le-coup-d-un-mandat-d-arret-international_1306379_3242.html
In my precedent post I missed to point that Baker arrest warrant was done in November, making him the principal target.
About Baker’s IP, I can only hope that cyber crimininal investigators know much of the tricks used to mask an IP adress.
It’s possible that to track the original sender, they had needed to access to log files from different ISP to verify their finding, and that could explain the delay between Baker was named as a possible Hacker, it was just a few month after the hacking announcement.
Armstrong had been named as free assumption by some reporters because of the breaking of email accounts the Andreu and Lemond for which he was one of the more likely responsible.
About concealment, by resending the dubious “received” documents (with or without modifying them) to different entities, without warrant about their authenticity, to take an advantage of it makes the fault .
Debby,
That is not the French who are after Floyd, that is Justice, everyone is responsible of his act. Floyd had already paid for his doping fault, if he is found guilty of hacking or accomplice, he would have to pay for it too.
Oh Jean, now you’re the one that’s guilty of tilting at windmills.
The “hacked” documents were not used in the USADA hearing in Malibu. Documents from LNDD, not officially provided by LNDD for the hearing, were made publicly available for review by member(s) of the Landis defense team. They were made available with a prominent disclaimer regarding their authenticity. I believe CyclingNews was inaccurate in reporting they were used in the Malibu hearing. CyclingNews seems to need a fact checker.
In the hypothetical, let’s say a bike enthusiast who is now a California DA got a bug up his backside about the “truthiness” of the testimony given at Pepperdine by either Claire Frelat or Cynthia Mongongu in the AAA hearing and wanted to possibly charge them with perjury. Would it be right to notify them that they are being summoned to appear or are being charged with perjury via the news media or over interwebs? The answer is, of course, no, and Frelat/Mongongu would be reasonable in screaming bloody murder about incompetent U.S. governmental officials and the possibility of a witch hunt conspiracy being waged against them. Same holds true for Floyd. The way the French officials are handling the matter is simply stupid.
To add insult to injury, Floyd and/or Arnie are not the actual suspect(s).
Edit:
“Months ago I offered to be interviewed through the applicable U.S.-French Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty and the French authorities have not done so,” Baker told VeloNews in an email Tuesday. “I want to make it clear once again: I never hacked into, and never helped or hired or asked anyone to hack into, the LNDD (French anti-doping) computer system.”
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/02/news/landis-adviser-says-hes-offered-to-talk-denies-hacking_105351
So, it looks like Rant effortlessly out-scoops VeloSnooze (chapeau Rant!) and it also seems someone(s) in Nanterre needs to brush up on the applicable international treaties, specifically the U.S.-French Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.
I don’t know if Zirbel is getting a raw deal or not. However, it’s at lease even money that he is given the recent track record of the alphabet soup. If he’s going to contest his imminent suspension, let’s see it in the most publicly accessible and open forum available. Sunshine is a great natural disinfectant.
Regardless of which entity will be providing testing for the ’10 TdF, AFLD will be active by availing themselves of their right to test any athletes within the testing pool that are located on French soil. ASO/UCI are not going to get rid of that bad penny so easily. There is sure to be plenty of drama in store.
It’s splitting hairs trying to decide whether the IoC or NCAA is the more money grubbing and corrupt organization. Each fleeces millions per year off the labor of poorly compensated athletes. Congratulations to your dad for keeping his integrity.
This is all rather confusing to me. If Landis/Baker were subpoenaed some time back by the French, what authority does that hold on US citizens on US soil? The above references to the U.S.-French Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty lead me to believe that there is a procedure in place for such things and the French authorities failed to follow such procedure. If so, I would think L/B are under no compulsion to make themselves available. They might or might not want to volunteer to submit to questioning via telephone, or in a deposition conducted in the US. Personally, I wouldn’t be keen to say much more other than what they have said publicly so far: “We did not participate in any way in hacking LNDD.”
But I see a potential problem: it is difficult to actually prove you are innocent of this crime. It might or might not be possible to prove that Baker’s IP address was spoofed, especially now after all this time and if perhaps the French authorities/LNDD restrict access to the hacked system and various records. And this is not the type of crime where you can say “I couldn’t have done it, I was somewhere else at the time”.
Certainly, Landis/Baker fall under some degree of suspicion, and the French authorities do have some right to attempt to question them. But it seems that they are being rather heavy handed about this. If there is some procedure in place under the treaty mentioned, why didn’t they use that?
Here you are William:
http://untreaty.un.org/unts/144078_158780/16/2/7131.pdf
I’ve only done a very quick read, but it appears, 1) The prosecuting officials in Nanterre are unaware of the treaty, a treaty that has existed at least since the Clinton Administration (I find that doubtful, but ignorance would indicate incompetence), 2) The prosecution officials in Nanterre couldn’t be bothered to submit their request to the proper authorities and decided to shortcut with the news media and interwebs, or 3) the prosecuting officials in Nanterre would be required to make their request in writing to the French Minister of Justice or their designee and they realize they would likely be laughed at for making such a frivolous request.
At any rate:
“This Treaty does not apply to:
the execution of requests for provisional arrest and extradition;”
Under the terms of the treaty, it appears the Nanterre gang would need to arrange to speak with Floyd and/or Arnie by a means other than compelling them to appear in France. As that is not their publicly stated goal, and their publicly stated goal appears contrary to the terms of the treaty, they seem intent on ignoring the treaty or just using a sliver of common sense.
I’ll read the treaty more carefully as soon as I can find the time.
Edit:
Okay, I was curious, so I quickly found the time to read further. The following speaks to the subjects of notice and service, reimbursement of travel and costs, and safe conduct:
“3. Proof of service shall consist of a receipt dated and signed by the addressee or a statement by the Requested State noting the fact, the method, and the date of service. Either of these documents shall be sent immediately to the Requesting State. If service could not be effected, the Requested State shall inform the Requesting State immediately of the rea- son.
4. The Central Authority of the Requesting State shall transmit a document requiring the appearance of a person in the Requesting State to the Central Authority of the Request- ed State at least 50 days before the date of the scheduled appearance. Upon the request of the Requesting State, the Central Authority of the Requested State may waive this require- ment for persons other than defendants.
Article 16. Appearance in the Requesting State
1. If the Requesting State requests the personal appearance of a witness or an expert, the Requested State shall invite this witness or expert to appear. The Requested State shall inform the Central Authority of the Requesting State of the person’s response.
2. Such a request shall mention the approximate amount of the invited person’s travel and subsistence costs to be reimbursed. If the person so requests, the Requesting State may advance part or all of the funds to pay those expenses through its diplomatic or consular missions in the Requested State.
3. A witness or expert who fails to comply with a document requiring an appearance in the Requesting State, service of which has been effected pursuant to a request, shall not be subjected to any sanction or measure of restraint, even if the document contains a notice of penalty, unless the person subsequently travels voluntarily to the Requesting State, is duly served, and again fails to comply.
Article 17. Safe Conduct
1. A witness or expert appearing in the Requesting State in response to a request shall not be subject to service of process, prosecuted, detained, or subjected to any other restric- tion of personal liberty in that State by reason of any acts or convictions that preceded the person’s departure from the Requested State unless the Central Authority of the Requesting State limits such safe conduct and so notifies the Central Authority of the Requested State. Any such limitation of safe conduct shall be communicated to the witness or expert at the time the witness or expert is invited to appear.
2. A person appearing in the Requesting State in response to a document served to answer for acts, for which that person is the subject of a criminal investigation or prosecu- tion, shall not be prosecuted, detained, or subjected to any other restriction of personal lib- erty for acts or convictions that preceded that person’s departure from the Requested State other than those specified in the document served.
76Volume 2172, I-38120
The safe conduct provided for by this Article shall cease if the person, being free to leave, has not left the Requesting State within a period of fifteen consecutive days after be- ing officially advised that the person’s presence was no longer necessary or, having left, has returned.”
Edit #2:
Then there is this, related to procedure & expenses associated with video depositions taken in the USA:
“ARTICLE 23 (1)
The discussion relating to Article 23 demonstrated the Parties’ concerns to execute re- quests for mutual legal assistance in the least expensive manner, in particular those requests to obtain depositions in the United States. As a result, the Parties agreed that the United States will arrange and pay for the audio recording of a deposition requested by French au- thorities and its transmission to French authorities. Sealed in a container, the audio record- ing will be accompanied by a report or a declaration of the competent authority in the United states certifying the circumstances in which the deposition was taken. This docu- ment will mention the name of the authority conducting the proceeding, the identity of the person being deposed, and a statement whether or not the person was deposed under oath. The document should be signed by the deponent or, in case the deponent refuses or is un- able to sign the document, the document should contain a statement to that effect. On the other hand, the costs of services furnished by private parties, such as those resulting from the transcription of depositions by a “court reporter”, will be paid for by French authorities.”
Jean C, There is more to read, but it appears Bordry and someone(s) in Nanterre are serving us up a large and unhealthy helping of male bovine excrement (BS).
Drama in Twitter Land.
@therealfloydL account no more.
Jean,
Interesting tidbit you provided. I’ll have to take a look at the whole article at some point. One thing that always concerns me is when small quotes are taken from documents. The problem with that is we don’t see the full context of those words, so it’s easy to misinterpret or misrepresent what the statements mean.
Jeff,
Looks like you did a whole lot of research on what that treaty contains. Thanks.
atxanon,
Sure enough, @TheRealFloydL has vanished from the twitterverse. That’s some tweet there. Sounds angry, for sure (not that I blame him).
One thing I’d like to explore, in hopes it will clarify some thinking.
Let us suppose that there has been no IP forgery, and that Arnie Baker did, in fact, electronically send copies of the documents in question, with a not-very-good attempt to be anonymous.
Does this mean he was involved in the hack that acquired them from the lab in the first place? I do not believe so — it demonstrates that he received them and wanted to make their existence known.
We’d need to look at the timeline. Depending on when they were sent from Baker’s IP address, and when the hack was done, and when things were mailed, and when the original 2006 announcement was made, there would be indications where he fell in the chain of distribution.
We do not have this information. We do have evidence to suggest that some of the data as presented by M Bordry has been at variance with facts, for example the “national” vs. “international” warrant. I have never seen Baker’s IP address raised by any of the sources for this story in any context other than maybe having sent copies places after the paper distribution.
Then there is another question about the legality of his having and distributing the material after it has come into his possession. Under US law, there would be no issue, I do not believe. In France, I would have no idea whether having a copy of information someone else obtained improperly is an offense, or how the original source being a government agency affects the interpretation. If it is improper for Baker, then other people who were sent physical printouts would seem to be equally in the breach, including Sam Abt of the IHT, who made it clearly known that he had received a copy.
It’s certainly reasonable for the investigating authorities to want to ask questions, but in the US there’s little obligation to respond to an improperly served summons.
Jeff seems to have found some relevant discussion of what the proper procedure would be.
It is true that M. Bordry’s agency is having budget problems. Perhaps this is encouraging him to seek publicity, leading him by circumstance to be elusive with facts and speaking in a confusing way about awkwardly pursued judicial process. It is his business how he runs his affairs. There is a white whale still swimming that he would like to harpoon, and the Landis case is one of the few tools he feels he has at his disposal, so he will use it as he sees fit.
TBV
Rant,
What is clear are the subject of the warrants.
The real reason to do so is not said.
TBV,
Bordry is relatively straight on the point, his mistake about national and international is a lapsus because the next step would be to issue an international warrant, maybe by following the “Mutual Treaty”.
But after reading the french version quickly, it seems that that treaty is only usefull to act on the other soil, and there is no obligation to use it, especially to arrest or question someone of the other nationality on the national soil.
Jean C,
The treaty is governing, not the whims or Bordry or his friends in Nanterre. Try reading the treaty again. If the authorities in Nanterre were plumbers and had every necessary tool and ample materials, they still couldn’t fix a simple leaky pipe. They should either learn their business or find a different career. Bordry and his Nanterre cronies have embarked upon a BS PR campaign that has no relation to law enforcement or justice. The fact that so many people on various forums have been critical of Floyd and Arnie by jumping to erroneous conclusions on the issue is flat out scary. It’s incumbent upon the Nanterre authorities to follow the applicable law and the applicable treaty. So far, they have not. The fault lies with them, not with Floyd or Arnie.
I was channel surfing a couple of nights ago after the Olympics and landed on Sports Soup on Versus. At the start of this week’s episode (see the link below for EST broadcast times), the host briefly commented on headlines of the week, including the arrest warrant for Floyd Landis “for computer hacking into its drug testing lab. COMPUTER HACKING?! . . . French authorities apparently decided it was Landis . . . because they couldn’t find a way to link it to Lance Armstrong.”
That’s when I turned the television off — because I was laughing too hard to hear anything else. Truly, this is the sum total of all wisdom on the subject. I may have to make a habit of watching this show.
http://www.versus.com/shows/sports-soup/
AND on the subject of Thomas Cassuto, French judge:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1054036/Scooby-dog-makes-legal-history-appearing-court-witness-murder-case.html
This should make it clear what kind of legal mind we’re dealing with.
P.S. Floyd, if you see a strange dog heading your way — RUN!
Thanks Liggett junkie. Maybe Judge Cassuto asked the dog to inform Floyd and Arnie they were supposed to go to Nanterre to face the music? Quite a system they have there! Woof.
Thanks Jeff for the info on the treaty. If I am reading things right, right now at least Landis and Baker can safely ignore things.
Regarding people jumping to conclusions about Landis and Baker in this case, I think it’s kind of a Roshack (sp?) test thing. If you think Landis was a dirty slimy doper, you tend to be prepared to think the worst of him in any matter; if you think he at a minimum was screwed by the process, you are more likely to think this was a bovine issue.
My guess is that in fact neither Landis nor Baker would even have any idea about how to hire a hacker. It’s not like you can look one up in the yellow pages. How many people here could actually, on your own, obtain the services of a hacker? Possibly Jacobs or someone in his firm might know, but then again, I wonder. Certainly a lawyer could be helped if he knows what is in an opponents computer system, even if he couldn’t actually use that information in court. But would a lawyer of Jacobs caliber actually resort to such underhanded schemes, risking his career if it ever came out? Again, some of us have low opinions of the legal profession, and are quite prepared to think lawyers are unscrupulous, but I think there are many lawyers who are quite ethical. YMMV
No general low opinion of lawyers here. Related to a few. They are excellent at their profession.
As with any profession, there are some disreputable attorneys.
Some of my best friends are lawyers — and judges. (Really.)
Wow, just catching up.
TBV, I think I have the timeline info, based on various news rerports I’ve collected over the past several months.
On October 23 (2006), Ayotte received the email from “Norman Crepin”
On November 7, the LNDD filed a complaint with the police.
On November 9th, the brown envelopes were mailed out from Paris.
The October 23rd date is the important one, and it was reported in a 2009 l’express article. A 2006 bikeradar article said it was the end of October.
So I think that being the person who sent the email on October 23rd would mean (at least) that they had this before it was really public. Again, this does not make anyone in Arnie’s circle guilty of hacking.
I’ve never read anything that specifically nails down when the actual break-in took place. Other break-ins by Quiros are listed in an article as all taking place in the summer of 2006.
Since they seem to have traced the original email from Quiros that was used to install a trojan horse, authorities must know exactly when this break-in occurred, it just hasn’t been reported. I have to wonder why this date remains hidden – with the confession, police have no need to withhold it, and if it supported the Landis angle, I’d think the press would be all too happy to report it.
Also, I’ve found additional details on the IP address. The evidence sounds plausible (despite my past reservations on the issue). But it would also be entirely possible for that information to be forged. Given that the email is known to be a forgery (at some level) in the first place, it’s not really useful as real evidence, and I’m sure the French police are perfectly aware of that.
Finally, I’ll say that this case has been progressing very slowly. They had a confession from Quiros in July 2008. Given how slowly and softly they’ve approached interviewing Arnie/Floyd, it makes one wonder if they really think they are directly involved, or if they simply think they may have been contacted by the actual hackers, and so be a possible lead in their investigation.
tom
Tom,
To add to your timeline, according to one of my sources, the document that supposedly incriminates Arnie Baker was last edited by someone identified only as “Arnie” on November 13th or 17th, 2006, if I recall correctly. (I’ll have to go back and double-check some notes that are at home to verify which date it was.) So, whatever the contents of that document, it may not be the hacker documents — unless Baker or whoever created the document by “Arnie” somehow received a printed copy and scanned it into MS Word.
That means that whatever might have been in the October email to Christianne Ayotte from “Norman Crepin,” the one thing that wasn’t in the email was the document that she attributes to Baker.
Hey Rant and crew … A bit off topic …
I was looking up stuff about the Vancouver Olympics and stumbled across two interesting pictures taken a few weeks ago (Feb 9 and 10).
Vancouver opened a new doping lab for the Olympics. It’s director is Christiane Ayotte
http://newshopper.sulekha.com/christiane-ayotte_photo_1129649.htm
In other picture they should two lab technicians working on a sample, Nancy Wong and Cynthia Mongongu.
http://newshopper.sulekha.com/nancy-wong-cynthia-mongongu_photo_1155632.htm
So while we may be putting the band back together here, it seems WADA is putting the band back together in Vancouver.
Almost sounds like a temporary facility. The caption to the photo of Christiane Ayotte leaves me puzzled. It almost sounds like the work is being done in Montreal.
After what I heard/read from the Malibu hearings, heaven help anyone whose sample is analyzed by Mlle. Mongongu.
This article addresses the general question, “is it worth it to go after cyber-criminals?”
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/05/cyberattack.prosecute/index.html?hpt=Sbin