Time To Build The Momentum
A couple of weeks have passed since the Floyd Landis arbitration hearings wrapped up at Pepperdine University’s School of Law in Malibu, California. Coming in to the hearings, a certain amount of momentum had been building, advocating changes to the way the anti-doping system runs in the United States. Leading the charge, of course, was the Floyd Fairness Fund.
Anyone who followed the hearings knows the PR hit that the Floyd Fairness Fund took, unfairly, due to a certain phone call. The day after that phone call made the news, Michael Henson sent out a letter to donors letting them know that Will Geoghegan was not formally connected to the FFF, except by association with Floyd Landis. Geoghegan was not a paid employee of the FFF, he was (up until the LeMond Incident) Landis’ business manager.
The bad light that this one event cast over Team Landis and the FFF could well derail the hard work and advocacy that the Floyd Fairness Fund has done. But it doesn’t have to. Over at Trust But Verify, in a series of comments to a post there, the idea came up that those who feel the system needs changing should write their elected officials and encourage them to look into the practices of the US Anti-Doping Agency and how they conduct anti-doping cases and investigations. PCrosby, who’s commented here and at TBV suggested that someone should set up a site to act as a clearinghouse, with names of Representatives and Senators who might be able to help. (I don’t remember which post at TBV he made the suggestion, but it was about a week or two ago.)
Well, there’s already a place that has a good amount of information in that regard. It’s the Get Involved page at the Floyd Fairness Fund website. No matter what your opinion is about Landis and whether he doped, if the issues raised by his defense (or by USADA’s actions at the hearing or otherwise) give you cause for concern, the suggested topics and the suggested contacts are a good starting point.
Perhaps someone will take up the mantle that PCrosby talked about, offering up names of sympathetic Representatives and Senators who can assist in the cause, and documenting various elected officials who can be contacted and will listen, and look into, the concerns raised by the Landis case and what came out at the hearings.
Regardless of what verdict is rendered in the Landis case, the anti-doping system needs reform. The science behind the testing needs to be solid and beyond reproach. That means anti-doping science needs to be peer reviewed by a group larger than just the scientists at the various anti-doping labs. WADA’s version of omerta must be undone. True science requires open, frank discussions. Requiring WADA affiliates to speak no evil of others within the system does no favors to the advancement of anti-doping tests or the science behind them.
Anti-doping efforts need to focus on drugs that have a true impact on performance. For endurance athletes, there’s no doubt that EPO and blood doping can have an effect. And have. But some drugs give potential performance enhancements in one sport while diminishing performance in another. Think of caffeine. Getting hopped up on caffeine before a bike race, trembling like a palm tree in a hurricane, may not have a negative effect on your race outcome. Maybe you’ll even do better. Doing the same thing before competing in the biathlon, where you need to ski fast and shoot accurately, might have a negative impact on how well you hit your targets. So the drugs banned for a given sport need to be those that could give an athlete an unfair advantage, not those that have no positive impact. The system needs to be rational.
The anti-doping system could benefit by a separation of powers and other changes. Since it’s a quasi-judicial system, funded in part by the taxpayers, we should expect that normal rules of justice would prevail. That includes the procedures leading up to an anti-doping hearing. There should be the same standards of justice, rules of evidence and so forth. Think of this: During the Landis case, USADA refused to provide documents as part of the defense’s discovery request. That shouldn’t happen. Discovery should happen just as in a court case. Any exculpatory evidence the ADAs have should be given over to the defense. Withholding evidence should not be allowed.
There are, of course, more issues that need to be addressed in order for the system to really function the way it should. Take the time to write to Congress and let them know we need an anti-doping system that respects the rights of athletes, and gives them all of the same protections our judicial system requires. It’s not about justice for one particular athlete, it’s about justice for all of the athletes who will get ensnared in the future.
A Contrarian Take On Steroids
On the June 21st, 2005 broadcast of Real Sports, Armen Keteyian did a story called “The Contrarian View” on what the health effects and risks are for healthy adult men who use steroids. (And it’s important to note that the story talks specifically about healthy adult men, Keteyian is very careful to note that steroids have different effects on women and children.) It’s almost 14 minutes long, but worth a look when you have time. It’s an eye-opener.
View the video at Google Video.
Davis Phinney Q&A in VeloNews
Back around the time Lance Armstrong won his second Tour, I let my subscription to VeloNews lapse. I wasn’t reading it as much, and the articles (except for the race coverage) were getting to be a bit predictable. Most of the time, I’d glance one article and then recycle the publication, which at the time was still being printed on newsprint.
Last summer, as Floyd Landis was on his way to winning the Tour, I decided to start up again. So I mailed in one of those offer cards I get from being a USA Cycling member. I waited, and waited, and waited. No VeloNews. By the time the Landis story broke, I figured the subscription wasn’t going to start up, so I let the matter drop. Most cycling news is online, anyway.
Well, I gave it another chance, and this time the magazine actually arrived in my mailbox. Yesterday, I got the issue with coverage of the Landis hearings. Most, if not all, of that was already online. But there’s a good question and answer article with Davis Phinney that I haven’t found on the site (page 22, in the VeloNotes section). The questions have to do with character, what it takes to win, and Phinney’s views on doping. I’ve always heard him to be a class act, and this interview certainly reinforces my impression.
Head on down to your local newstand or bike shop and pick up a copy of the latest issue (the one with Floyd on the cover). It’s worth the price just to read what Phinney has to say.
you are mean and cruel, rant. you’ve got me wanting to read the Phinney article badly (and, yes, he is a class act), but i’m in france…. mean mean mean! i apologise for the tantrum, but it’s frustrating sometimes. i want to read it for Floyd. i want to read it for Phinney. i want hear what he says about character…. sigh.
Cam,
Sorry about that, chief. When I get some extra time, perhaps I’ll keystroke the darn thing in. In the meantime, maybe the good folks at VeloNews.com will come to their senses and put the article out on the Internet.
– Rant
Hi Rant:
I noticed you read Bill Hue’s “Comfortably Numb” piece at TBV. Like you, I thought it was great writing. However, the way the piece concluded — specifically the “If it (The Wall) is a psychological weakness it will only come down once the truth is told, truthfully.” — has left me wondering: Is Hue saying he thinks there is a good possibility Landis has NOT told the truth?
I tried to post a comment to ask him, but I don’t (yet) have a google account. So, I thought I’d ask you the same simple questions I plan to ask Hue. Q1: Based on the evidence, do you think Landis doped? Q2: Do you think the arbitrators will find for Landis or for USADA?
I have begun a new book by called “Assault on Reason”. The premise is that officials (in the case of the book, elected officials) systematically offer views of events and suggest courses of action that contradict known fact. Worse, the American public seems to agree with and supports the best presenter without any desire to learn the facts or think through them to form an opinion. Said another way, 30 TV second spots and entertainment disguised as news now drive public viewpoint and, as a nation, we have begun to lose the ability to reason. I suppose the Landis case — especially some of the bizarre impacts of “the call” — make me agree. And, it makes me want to see what people (like you) think now.
Here are my answers: Q1: No, Floyd did not dope. Q2: Landis wins.
Steve,
I don’t think Bill Hue meant to imply that Landis wasn’t telling the truth. At least, that’s my read of his article. In answer to your questions:
Q1) No, I see no conclusive evidence that Landis doped. Quite the opposite, I see evidence that poorly trained lab techs, operating equipment they didn’t understand came up with results they couldn’t repeat, even with the same data. For science to be science, the same data should yield the same result every time. That it didn’t suggests a problem, either with the operators analyzing the data, or a problem with the data, itself. Take your pick.
Q2) I would like to see Landis win. But I have concerns about whether this will happen. If the case is judged solely on the facts, and not on emotion or preconceived notions of how the result should be, then I think he’s got a strong chance to win. What goes on in the mind of Patrice Brunet is hard to know. I expect the result to be 2-1, who wins depends on which way Brunet votes.
I haven’t had time to pick up the book you’re reading. Unfortunately, I’m rather busy with another major writing project, too. Sometime later this year I should be able to get to it, I hope. The way the public is led astray by elected officials, especially in recent years, is appalling. And dangerous. Did you watch the Republican debates? Mitt Romney told a whopper of a lie: That if independent inspectors had been allowed to go into Iraq before we went to war, and they had found no WMDs, the war wouldn’t have been necessary and we wouldn’t have invaded. None of the major media have called him on it, yet. Exactly what were Hans Blix and his colleagues doing in late 2002 and early 2003? I always thought they were independent inspectors looking for WMDs, and that their report said they couldn’t find any.
Scary the way the 30-second sound bite has become all people use to make their voting choices. Very scary.
– Rant
Hi Rant,
Like you, if i were to use just the facts i would agree that Landis should walk (ride) free. But something niggles away at me in light of all the continual revelations of doping past and not so distant past. What made him so immune to all the temptations available to the cycling community particularly in Spain where he was based? I would expect that he would have an intimate knowledge about the doping process whether he used it or not. Why? Because he admitted that he researched it on the net and if someone else was cheating you would want to know how it was done and what the telltale signs were to suspect someone. Was a strong enough case made to show that he had a strong enough character to resist temptation? This may be a position that USADA may take in their brief as they certainly can’t deny the ineptitude of the lab. Their point of view is essentially ‘how can we believe Landis when there are so many cheats in cycling’.
Secondly, like you i think it will be a 2-1 decision and i feel it will go in favour of Landis. Patrice Brunet strikes me as competent and intelligence and willing to weigh the facts of the case. The other panel member (McClaren i think) is an unknown. He said very little through the whole process but allegedly has strong leanings towards WADA so i am not sure he will be as objective as he should be.
Cheers
Q1: Based on the evidence, the only thing that would hold me back from finding in Landis’ favor was the testimony of Don Catlin, which I found very credible, that there was “no question doping occured”. Given that the standard is “comfortably satisfied” and based on the remainder of the evidence, I would have discussions with the other Panel members concerning how they felt about the less than adequate presentation of the LNDD lab technicians through their own testimony as commented upon by the testimony of Amory, Davis and the Doctor. After considering all viewpoints, I would make up my mind, but going in, my inclination would be in Landis’ favor.
Q2. It will either go 3-0 in Landis’ favor or 2-1 against.
My best guess is 2 to 1 against, with the caveat that Dr Botre, in the confines of the conversations he had with the Panel, may feel ok to point out LNDD violations and comment upon their importance or lack of importance without regard to the “ethical code” against a WADA lab employee “testifying” in favor of an athlete, because as an “independent” expert, his conversations with the Panel and recommendations are more adjudicative than testimonial.
If he thinks the lab was too sloppy and therefor unreliable, that is how the Panel will get to 3-0. If he does not think that, or if the “ethical code” prevents him from saying that, then 2-1 against, with Campbell in disent.
Suddenly a busy Thursday. 🙁
I got involved some months ago. I sent letters to my Senators, representative and to some of the committee members listed on the FFF site. In all about 10 letters. I got exactly *zero* response; not even an acknowledgment of receipt.