Wednesday Hearings: Closing Arguments

It seems rather amazing that just an hour or so ago, the closing arguments in the Landis arbitration hearings finished. I’ve been following the summaries at Trust But Verify, because I was unable to get any of the video stream today. Pretty much the way it’s been at the Rant computer perch for the last couple of days.

Closing arguments started off with Richard Young, USADA’s attorney, stating the case as to why the panel should find Floyd Landis guilty of doping. What struck me as unusual were not only the things that Young focused on, but the things he appears to have glossed over. Many of the reasons he pointed to in why the panel should decide in USADA’s favor have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the results from Stage 17 were a positive result. Pretty much, in so many words, Young said, “trust us, it’s a positive.”

Young talked about some of the science, but he really talked past it, trying to refute Team Landis’ claims by sticking to the same old, same old. At least, that’s the way I read the summaries. He cited their witnesses from other WADA-accredited labs stating that everything at LNDD was fine. Of course, he neglected to mention that the staff of WADA-accredited labs are subject to “ethics” rules that require them to speak no ill of another WADA-accredited lab.

But he took time to argue over character, dredging up Will Geoghegan’s ill-advised phone call, and some Internet posts borne of frustration more than an attempt at witness tampering or intimidation. Sure, Landis may have alluded to Greg LeMond’s secret in a post at the Daily Peloton Forums, but it’s possible he was talking about something else, too.

Young asks the panel to believe LeMond over Landis as to whether Landis admitted to doping. This takes a great leap of faith to do. What person would tell someone they hardly know their deepest, darkest secret? (I mean Landis to LeMond here.) Can you really believe that if Floyd Landis had been doping, he’d call up Greg LeMond out of the blue and say, “Yeah, Greg, I doped.” Or that Lance Armstrong would admit something like that to LeMond? I have a hard time with that.

And the reason I do, is that if I had something to hide, I’d hide it. The more people you tell, the more likely it is to become public. I feel bad for LeMond that his own secret was exposed in such a terrible way. Perhaps there’s a cautionary tale in all of that. But the exposure came through the actions of one person, not the entire Landis team. And when push came to shove, they did what was right: Sack Will. That had to be a very hard thing to do. And there’s a cautionary tale there, too.

Young tried to anticipate what Team Landis would say in their close. He shouldn’t have. Instead, he should have laid out the best arguments possible for his case, rather than try to preemptively address what the Landis defense would say. It sounds like an odd closing argument to me, especially given that he would have a chance to offer rebuttal arguments later.

And he tried to introduce evidence in the close that hadn’t been allowed in during the hearing. Blood work, seeming to suggest that Landis’ hematocrit level would be another indication of doping (the resulst are below WADA’s 51 threshold level, so no official indication of doping there). He says that the Landis side have called the lab staff evil geniuses. No, Mr. Young, they didn’t. Maybe some have written that on various blogs or forums, but I’ve never heard Team Landis talk about the lab that way. I’ve heard other things. Untrained. Perhaps incompetent. But not evil geniuses.

At the end, it appears Chris Campbell questions Young towards the end of his close. It sounds like Campbell was perhaps suggesting that Young had gone a bit too far in some of his statements. I can’t quite tell, but that’s my hunch.

Then, after a short break, Maurice Suh presents the Landis closing arguments. It’s pretty much on point, repeating the same things we’ve heard in during the last week and a half, either during cross examination by the Landis side, or during the questioning of their own witnesses. In TBV’s summary, Suh starts off his arguments with:

We’ve shown significant errors in every phase of every test. Identification, QC, chromatography, manual processing, deleted data, and other ISL violations.

Perhaps the most important, common sense.

I think Suh is right. Had common sense ruled the day last July and August, had the results been properly investigated in a real search for truth, I suspect none of us would have been following this case, writing about it, or even considering the flaws in the anti-doping system. Because with a more scientific approach to understanding the results, they would have found there was no positive there to begin with.

Maurice Suh runs through their entire case, lab error building on lab error, this problem building on that problem, laying out why none of the data or results can be trusted. He even cites some of USADA’s own witnesses, and their testimony, to build his argument.

He takes the time to refute misstatements and mischaracterizations by Young of the evidence Team Landis put on. According to TBV’s summary, Maurice Suh observed:

You can’t assume the athlete is guilty and back into it with the science.

Amen to that. That’s not science. Nor is it justice. It’s a mockery of both.

Suh then goes into violations of the International Standards for Laboratories that were brought up during the hearings. And he drives his points home. Suh offers:

The ugliest part of the argument [by USADA] is that if the ISL doesn’t apply to these problems, then the ISL is a fraud.

Suh then sums up his arguments:

Can we be proud of LNDD’s work? It matters not just to Mr. Landis. This is the first case to challenge the systematic failures of a laboratory.

This is a day in court for every athlete that LNDD has accused. Right now at LNDD, we may have lab techs with 6 months training who think what they are doing is right.

Can we approve of this work? Deleting files, changing data, not being able to identify the substances in questions.

If we do, that is what is coming to the 2007, 2008, 2009 tour.

Every athlete deserves to be treated better than this.

But we’re not done yet. In one of the most ironic statements to come from Team USADA, Richard Young offers this as his only rebuttal:

When the facts are not on your side, you accuse people, of lying, hiding, trafficking. We trust the panel to reach its own conclusions.

Then again, when the facts aren’t on your side, you might also accuse people of character flaws, guilt by association and being determined to win at all costs. Then again, USADA seemed pretty determined to win at all costs, didn’t they?

Two weeks after the final transcripts of the hearing are complete, both sides must present their final briefs to the arbitrators. That being the case, I’d guess it will be unlikely that we’ll hear anything before the latter part of June. Just in time for the AFLD, France’s anti-doping agency to start their case against Floyd.

Round 1 of the Landis vs. the ADAs bout is over. We’re going to have to wait awhile for the arbs decision. Round 2, will begin in Paris sometime in the next few months. And then there’s Round 3, the appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport — if there’s an appeal. It’s been a wild ride the last 10 days. But the travails of Floyd Landis are (unfortunately) far from over.

Special Note: Hats off to the entire Trust But Verify crew — TBV, strbuk, Marc and Bill Hue — for the phenomenal job they did over the last ten days in covering the hearings. It took an enormous amount of work and dedication on all their parts, and without their efforts we would all know a whole lot less about the Landis case and how the hearings played out. May they all get a good rest and a few good rides over the Memorial Day weekend.