Over at Trust But Verify is a link to a CyclingNews.com story which cites a Belgian website, sportswereld.be, that is speculating a decision in the Floyd Landis anti-doping case could come tomorrow. Exactly how they figured that out is not mentioned in the Belgian article, and it should be pointed out that the article is actually speculating that the decision could be announced either Friday or Saturday, Belgian time. CyclingNews takes the leap and makes the commentary that the news will come Friday, U.S. time.
Well, maybe it will, maybe it won’t. Judge Bill Hue, in a comment at TBV lays out how the Belgian website may have figured out the announcement date, saying:
Assuming the Panel closed the hearing as of June 25th (we don’t know that), under R-38, they have only 10 days, tomorrow, to make an award.
I think the Dutch article writer did the math correctly but the writer made two assumptions:
1)The arbitrators did not allow replies under R-34 (b);
2) The arbitrators closed the hearing on June 25th.The reason the arbitrators did not close the hearing in May, was to allow transcripts to be prepared and the parties to offer further submissions. The formal “closing” of proceedings starts the 10 day clock ticking.
However, the Rules do not compel when the Panel chooses to close the hearing, so any date they set would seem to allow them more time to make a decision.
Thus, while the article appears to be correct as to its math, there is still an issue as the whether the Panel has closed the hearing and whether it did so on June 25th.
June 25th would have been the date by which both sides had to present their final written arguments. But as Judge Hue points out in the rest of his comment, there is also a possibility that each side would be allowed to make comments on the other’s arguments. If the panel allowed such responses, then they may not have closed the hearings on June 25th.
And if the hearings are not yet closed, the 10-day decision clock is not yet ticking. So we’ll see if any white smoke appears tomorrow or not.
The timing of such an announcement would be quite interesting, however, coming on the eve of the 2007 Tour de France. I suppose that would satisfy Christian Prudhomme’s desire to have a winner determined before the start of this year’s Tour. If the decision goes against Landis, count on the UCI to quickly move to strip him of his 2006 Tour title. And if the decision is in Landis’ favor, expect that the UCI or WADA will quickly file an appeal.
No word, yet, from the Landis camp as to whether they’re aware of an imminent decision. Update: According to Landis spokesman Michael Henson, the Landis defense team has not been notified by the arbitration panel that their decision will be announced tomorrow.
From a “it’s what they deserve” stance, I’d love to see the announcement in the middle or near the end of the tour with Floyd being found innocent in a 3-0 decision. I realize this may be wishful thinking but it would be exactly what Dick Pound, Christian Prudhomme and company deserve given the way they have handled this case in the media from the get go.
The best possible outcome for the Tour is for Floyd to win his appeal. The Tour keeps its 2006 winner (albeit an American), they have their scapegoat (LNDD for its poor lab procedures), cycling gets to say we are continuing to clean up our sport of doping. If they want to be really nasty they can pay lip service to adding athlete protections from false accusations and use this to ratchet up the pressure on more testing and harsher fines. On the other hand, if Floyd loses, watch more sponsors drop out and interest in the Tour decline even further. No one wants to watch “doped” athletes and no sponsor wants to be associated with the possibility of doping. Now that I think about it, as an alternative to the riders forming a union to protect their interests, the sponsors should do this. What sponsor wants to expose their company to potential losses from a rider or team being wrongly accused of doping? The tour can go on without the top 10 riders, but can it go on without the top 10 sponsors? I need time to develop this line of thought, but lunchtime is over for me.
I also found this rule in the Supplimentary Procedures. It explains why the date of the “closing of the hearing” is so important:
R-43. Time of Award
The award shall be made promptly by the arbitrator and, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified by law, no later than 10 days from the date of closing the hearing, or, if oral hearings have been waived, from the date of the AAA’s transmittal of the final statements and proofs to the arbitrator. The 30 day period given to the arbitrator under rule 43 of the Commercial Arbitration Rules for rendering an award shall be reduced to 10 days.
Bill
I could be reading between the lines too much, but Henson’s comment sounds like it’s all done and in the hands of the arbiters now, and that a decision could come at any time.
Bill,
Thanks for the additional information. Most appreciated.
Cub,
You may be reading between the lines too much, and I definitely struggled with the wordsmithing. What he didn’t say is whether or not there are any more responses or responses to responses left, but at some point it will all be in the hands of the arbs. Probably already is, but we don’t know for certain. Here’s the sum total of what Michael Henson told me:
Probably should have just included that and let what he said speak for itself.
– Rant
Who cares???
Roid Lanids is doomed—and deservedly so.
For a confessed witness tampering creep to keep a race license is immoral.
Even Sally Jenkins abandoned Roid Landis early—and she is a huge doper supporter/biographer.