Getting a bit rusty on this whole blogging thing. Which means it must be time for an update. Two curious stories have come to my attention in the past week. One, involving Michael Ashenden and the other involving Floyd Landis.
Oh No, Not You Again
First, the Landis story (props to Show Me The Money Landis! who tipped me off). CyclingNews.com (and from what I can tell through Google News, only CyclingNews.com) published a brief story a few days ago that Floyd Landis might be facing a fraud investigation in connection to the Floyd Fairness Fund, which was set up to raise money for his defense in his now-infamous doping case that we all know and love (well, maybe not love, but you get the idea). According to their brief article:
The news surrounding a possible federal case against Landis dates back to 2007, when in January of that year he set up the Floyd Fairness Fund. The fund was set up to accept donations to Landis’ legal case as he sought to clear his name. Landis was believed to have raised about $1 million in donations but Cyclingnews understands that the true figure was less than $300,000. In 2010, after his subsequent confession Landis said that he would try and pay back the kindness extended to him once he had the sufficient funds.
Cyclingnews understands that a Grand Jury in San Diego may charge him with fraud and that Landis has been notified by FBI agents.
As soon as word got out that Floyd had `fessed up, some folks wondered whether a fraud case could be made against Landis. If the CyclingNews.com report is correct, it certainly sounds like Landis could face new legal problems. I’m a bit puzzled, though. I would think that Landis might have made some sort of agreement with the Feds prior to spilling his guts to guarantee that he wouldn’t be prosecuted for anything he might admit to. Then again, there’s an old saying about when you assume.
I’ve got an email out to Floyd to see whether he will confirm and/or comment on this report. Odd that no other news organizations have picked up on this, yet. (At least, as far as Google News is concerned.) Not sure what to make of that, unless they are also suffering from a bit of doping fatigue (and I, for one, couldn’t blame them if they were).
The Price of Being Outspoken
And now on to Michael Ashenden (hat tip to B C, who emailed me a link to the BBC’s story last week). Ashenden is not known for hedging his bets when the subject of discussion is doping and the tests used to whether an athlete has been using performance enhancing drugs and techniques. He’s also been known, at times, to criticize how the athletic federations (think UCI) and the anti-doping agencies handle certain cases.
It turns out that a new organization, called Athlete Passport Management Unit (APMU), has been set up to administer the biological passport at the Swiss Laboratory for Doping Analyses in Lausanne. And apparently the APMU included a confidentiality clause in the contract that experts such as Ashenden must sign in order to work for them. According to the Beeb’s article:
Dr Ashenden says his new contract requires him to get permission before offering personal opinions on any matter related to his role interpreting blood profiles. He says the APMU are “trying to manage the message”.
The scientist told the BBC: “It seems to me that too much emphasis is being placed on controlling what the media are told. There should be nothing to hide, so why stop the experts from talking?”
Quite. Ashenden went on to tell the Beeb:
“We constantly struggle to overcome [the athletes’] omerta, their refusal to tell us what is happening in their sport. We want them to blow the whistle on their colleagues. And yet here Lausanne is imposing its own ‘omerta’.
“In fact, it goes one step further and writes legally binding contracts to stop their experts from speaking out. It’s hypocritical, and suggests they talk the talk but won’t walk the walk.”
Ashenden is not totally out of the picture, though he won’t be advising the UCI or the IAAF from what I understand. CyclingNews.com, quoting an interview on the NYVelocity site, confirms that Ashenden will no longer serve on the panel in Lausanne, but…
I will not be an expert on Lausanne’s Passport Management Unit (APMU). I do intend however to remain a member of WADA’s Expert Panel. As well, Dan Eichner at the Salt Lake City lab has also convened their own APMU with a truly formidable panel of experts, and I’ve accepted their offer to participate on that panel. I’m enthusiastic about the prospects for that to grow and establish itself in the future.
Strange how things work in the world of the anti-doping agencies and labs. I suspect that this will be Lausanne’s loss and Salt Lake City’s gain.
And finally…
It’s been way too long since I updated the appendix to my book, but I’m thinking it’s time to do so. Here are some of the stories I’m thinking of updating:
- The Never-ending Saga of Floyd Landis
- Barry Bonds Gets Convicted
- Alberto Contador’s Tainted Beef
- Ryan Braun
What other stories do you think should be included?
Hey Rant….welcome back! (and before I forget, Happy Birthday…Thurs I think??)
Wow…interesting stuff for sure. I’ve had my head under a rock lately and not getting much cycling news whatsoever (still over in the UK…been here working since late Jan, with less than 2 weeks to go…woo-HOO!).
Isn’t the thing against Landis kind’a like kicking a dead horse? I mean, unless he’s gotten some awesome new high-paying job, how is he going to pay ANYBODY back, let-alone a paltry $300k$?
As to the news about Ashenden, it does seem like more of the “same ol, same ol'”. Managing the message…hmmm…sounds like censorship to me. The lack of transparency and oversight in ANY body with power over people in any way, shape or form is a scary-bad thing.
Hey Matt,
Thanks. So you’ll be heading back to the States right about the time you’ll be used to driving on the other side of the road, eh? I’d buy you a Sam Smith’s Oatmeal Stout at your local pub, but I won’t be over there any time soon. 😉
The whole Landis thing does seem like kicking a dead horse. And I really can’t imagine that he didn’t negotiate some sort of immunity for cooperating with Novitzky and company. But then again, stranger things have happened.
The Ashenden thing makes me think of a line from The Who: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…”
Question: the quote here says Landis set up the 3F, but my understanding was it was set up by others and that, at least at first, he had no connection other than accepting the funds.
Good question. I was under the same impression, that the FFF was created by others to assist Floyd with his legal bills. Haven’t ever seen the paperwork on it, though. So if he didn’t set up the fund, can he still be prosecuted for fraud if he received a benefit (such as help with lawyers’ bills)? Makes me wonder…
Landis isn’t the first person to have a legal defense fund set up for him, and I doubt that he is the first to have been found guilty after benefitting from such a fund. Have others been prosecuted under such circumstances?
And I wonder, why the long wait. I would think that, legally speaking, if indeed he is guilty of fraud, that such would be legally true from the time of the final CAS verdict, which served to establish legally, that he did dope (regardless of whether in fact he had doped or not)
Then perhaps he failed to live up to some part of whatever agreement he had with the feds and as result this.
Apparently, George Zimmerman has solicited donations for his defense via the Internet. If Landis winds up taking a fall for fraud, I wonder what that might portend for Mr. Zimmerman.