With apologies to The Glimmer Twins:
(Mick Jagger/Keith Richards)
Watching bikes go passing by
It aint the latest thing
I’m just standing in a doorway
I’m just trying to make some sense
All of these dudes who pass me by
The tales they tell of Cols in France
I’m not waiting on some lab rat
I’m just waiting on a verdict
A smile relieves a heart that grieves
Remember what I said
I’m not waiting on some lawyers
I’m just waiting for the word
I’m just waiting for the word
Don’t need a whore
I don’t need much booze
Don’t need a virgin priest
But I need someone I can ride with
I need someone to compete against
Racin’ bikes and breakin’ away
It is a game for youth
But I’m not waiting for some justice
I’m just waiting on my friends
So, to hear certain media tell it, today is the day the Floyd Landis decision gets handed down. That, according to Michael Henson, would be news to the Landis side. But sooner or later, the verdict will be handed down, and we’ll know whether the arbitration panel believes he doped his way to victory in the 2006 Tour de France (as USADA alleges) or whether he didn’t (as his defense team contends). In the meantime, the waiting and guessing goes on.
Will it favor Landis? Will it favor USADA? Given USADA’s track record up to now (undefeated, just like a certain Indiana University basketball team in the 1970s or the Miami Dolphins of similar vintage), many expect that the decision will be in USADA’s favor. Among them is Lance Armstrong, no stranger to doping allegations, who told a meeting in Aspen, Colorado earlier this week:
The arbitrators don’t ever rule for the athletes. Quite frankly the system is set up against the athletes. … Unfortunately for [Landis], I don’t think he did it. That’s always been my position and still is today, but I’m not sure that’s he going to get a fair shake in this trial.
Perhaps today, we’ll see. Depending on when the arbitration panel declared the hearings closed, they need to make their ruling within 10 days of that date. As Judge Hue calculated out yesterday, if the hearings were closed on June 25th, then today would be the day. But none of us know that for certain, and no one close to the arbitrators is talking. Yet.
Depending on the timing of the announcement, if it comes today, the story may get buried in the news cycles or splashed in the main headlines of the day. Since the panel is working in North America, and a certain race starts in London in about 24 hours time, the time difference between the two could ensure that the story gets major play in one place (the U.S., for example), and relatively minor play overseas.
Hard to imagine, though, that the decision could get minor play in Europe, where the 2007 Tour is about to start. But certainly Christian (mummy, why didn’t you name me ‘Dick’?) Prudhomme and company, after all their posturing about Landis over the last year, would want to play down any decision in his favor — especially given that such a decision will most likely be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. And given that the same company that owns the Tour also owns the French sports paper L’Equipe, they have a modicum of control over just how huge the announcement gets played — in the company rag, at least.
So, here’s Rant’s take on the timing:
If the decision is out before noon Eastern time: Major play in media on both sides of the Atlantic.
If the decision is out before 6 p.m. Eastern time: Major play in the North American media, not so much in Europe.
If the decision is announced after 7 or 8 p.m. Eastern time: Minor play in North America, perhaps bigger play in the Saturday edition of various European papers.
Will it happen today? Hard to say. Do the arbitrators, themselves, care much about how the story plays in the media? Only insofar as any of them might have political ambitions within the anti-doping system. Giving the ADAs some splashy publicity could be a way of showing one’s loyalty to the system, and perhaps pave the way for a seat at the big table.
Right now, however, I suspect that the media who originally reported that an announcement will come today are just blowing smoke. But I could be wrong. And if I am, those book signings in Chicago next week could be very interesting — depending on how long the media runs with the story.
One thing to keep in mind while waiting on the decision: Like the 1970s vintage IU basketball team and Miami Dolphins I mentioned earlier, all winning streaks come to an end. Sometimes, even, because the undefeated side choked during the big game.
Hi Rant:
Sweet lyrics! Speaking of Floyd’s friends, I downloaded Arnie’s e-book yesterday and am about 100 (of 309) pages through it. I was telling my wife this morning more stuff that I found out in Arnie’s book and she said “Are you going to be OK if Floyd doesn’t win this thing?” I thought for a while and, to be honest, I’m not sure. I just can’t imagine how anyone could ignore the rampant ISL violations Arnie clearly identifies. I mean, if Landaluze (sp?) won, Floyd should be a 360 in-your-face slam dunk win!
Of course, the overwhelming rightness of Floyd’s case is precisely why I worry about him loosing. So, I thought of a question you may know the answer to (which is my darkest fear). Namely, if the USADA arbitrators rule against Floyd and the same happens in the CAS, does Floyd have any other recourse? Like the Goldmans and OJ, can Floyd rely on a different system of justice? And, if Floyd doesn’t have any recourse, what about others that have been wronged … you could argue that Phonak folded as a result of this injustice. Or, that you and I (and other Landis fans) have been denied our right to “¦ well “¦ something or other.
Steve,
Thanks. I just did a bit of adaptation on the lyrics. Seemed like the right song to use. Bill Hue might know the answer to your question more definitively, but I believe that in the case where he loses both the initial arbitration and at the CAS level, he might have recourse under Swiss law (the CAS is based in Switzerland and chartered under Swiss law, I believe). But that would be an expensive, outside shot. I don’t know if it’s ever been done before, and there’s no telling whether it might succeed.
Let’s just hope it doesn’t have to go that far for the right thing to be done. And let’s hope we have enough perspective to understand that even in the face of evidence to the contrary, sometimes judicial systems come to wrong decisions, despite a person’s best efforts.
– Rant
Re: last paragraph: I so hope you are right.
Hasn’t Le Monde leaked the panel’s decision yet?
I looked around, but found nothing. Must say I’m disappointed – On the eve of the Tour, one would think a leak of this magnitude would amount to MAJOR publicity/sales.
Hey Yol,
Color me surprised, too. LeMonde or L’Equipe, one of them should have published the decision by now. Looks like they’re slacking.
– Rant
The last resort for the case itself is the Swiss civil court.
There may be a claim in US civil court but I’m no expert in Federal Law.
Hi Rant:
Thanks Bill — like Rant said, let’s hope it doesn’t go that far. Speaking of verdict, I am now about two thirds of the way through Arnie’s ebook. It is a pretty fast read as it is in outline style … and, Baker’s arguments are current through the end of arbitration. Arnie has classified his arguments by strength and I have learned several new facts (like the fact that all of the reference solutions used on one of Floyd’s sample’s were incorrect!) Arnie says that the concentrations were 2X the standard and could result in 100% difference in results. There is much more (I guess this is the 60 arguments … and maybe more … you wrote about Rant) and I would imagine that Floyd’s team has used this material with the arbitrators in their brief. Let’s hope the arbitrators are as reasonable as Landaluze’s (sp?).
{ 1 trackback }