Let’s see, today’s the seventh and the final meeting between the arbitrators and their scientific adviser, Dr. Francesco Botré, is on the 12th. Depending on when, exactly, the panel closes the hearing, we could be seeing a decision in this first round of the Floyd Landis case within a couple of weeks, or thereabouts. Of course, don’t expect the decision to be the last word. Unless one side or the other throws in the towel, their decision is going to be appealed.
Will the meeting next Wednesday between Dr. Botré and the arbitrators also be attended by attorneys for both sides, or is it a closed affair? Since Landis asked for an open hearing, shouldn’t this be open, as well? Or do meetings between the panel and their scientific adviser fall under some sort of private consultation.
And finally, will Dr. Botré give an honest assessment of the evidence presented? If he does, he may have to violate the WADA Omerta (“Thou shalt not speak ill of another WADA-certified anti-doping laboratory”) in fulfilling his duties as an adviser to the panel. The biggest thing that gives me pause about the person the panel chose is the fact that by being employed by an anti-doping lab (the one in Rome, Italy), he may have a conflict of interest — especially given WADA’s Omerta. I would much rather that the panel had picked someone truly independent, not beholden to either side of the argument, as their adviser.
Who’s Keeping Track At The UCI?
As I reported recently, Michael Rasmussen’s missed out-of-competition test appears to have been a paperwork snafu at the UCI. Rasmussen faxed the required documentation on June 26th informing the UCI of a change in his training plans for the upcoming days. Someone at the UCI either misfiled the paperwork, or failed to pass it on to the correct people. When the doping police showed up to where they thought Rasmussen would be, he wasn’t there. Had they found the paperwork Rasmussen submitted, they would have been able to track him down.
And now, it appears, the same thing happened to Alejandro Valverde earlier in June. Recently, according to cyclingnews.com, Valverde received an email from the UCI demanding to know why he was not present when they stopped by his house for a surprise test on June 23. The explanation was simple, Valverde and his team had notified the UCI 11 days earlier that he wouldn’t be at home, he would be racing in Eindhoven on that date. Eusebio Unzúe, Caisse D’Espargne’s directeur sportif, phoned the UCI and explained the matter to them.
“The UCI recognized to us that there had been an error,” Unzúe said. “At the same time that we indicated to them, the UCI, that we had sent a fax [June 12 – ed.] in which we announced that Valverde was going to be racing in Eindhoven.”
[Edit, to add the following]
Over at Endless Cycle, Peloton Jim adds this interesting tidbit about Valverde’s “missed test.”
In fact, Valverde was getting a UCI doping test at the race while the UCI was looking to conduct a test in Spain.
Nothing like the right hand not knowing what the left foot is doing, eh? PJ also has a YouTube clip of the old Abbott and Costello routine, “Who’s On First?” in his post, which certainly is a good (and funny) illustration of UCI’s difficulty in keeping things straight.
[End Edit]
Granted, there are a lot of riders to keep track of, but someone at the UCI also needs to do his or her job better. Or perhaps they need to find a better way of gathering the information, which can be updated quicker — like a secured web site where athletes and teams could enter their information on forms linked to a database. There are a lot of companies that could help the UCI develop such a system. Doing so would be money well spent. And problems like the ones that occurred with Valverde and Rasmussen might be fewer in number, or might even be eliminated entirely.
Also noted on the cyclingnews.com web site: Spain’s Cycling Federation (RFEC) will reportedly be sending a letter to the UCI stating that the documentation that the UCI demanded they review contains no new information regarding Valverde and Operacion Puerto. For that reason, they are not going to press forward with any disciplinary action against the rider. Also,
Alejandro Valverde’s manager, Sánchez Sabater, announced that they are willing to take an action against the UCI “if it impedes Valverde for the World Championships without any legal backing,” and also against “everybody who links him to the Operación Puerto without citing any evidence.” He admitted that “until now, we have been prudent; we did not want cause any more stink.”
Sounds like the gloves are about to come off.
Disco’s Swan Song …
… the cycling team, that is. Starting on the 11th and running until the 16th, the first (of hopefully many) Tour of Missouri will take place, traveling on through various parts of my home state. Starting in Kansas City, passing through Columbia (Go Tigers!) and finally ending up in the epicenter of the family Rant, St. Louis.
It’s one last chance to see the Discovery Channel Team in action, including Levi Leipheimer, George Hincapie and Alberto Contador. Not sure if I can make it down there, but it sure would be fun to see. The Disco team is one of the winningest teams of the last decade, and this is their swan song. If you live close by any of the venues get out and show your support — it’s not to be missed.
Reflections On The Interview
In the past, I’ve wondered out loud in these pages what would motivate someone like Joe Papp to participate in the Landis prosecution when it didn’t really appear to be in his interest to do so. Or at least, it didn’t seem like it was. Instead of continuing to wonder, I decided to take advantage of an opportunity to put the question to the source. Papp’s answer, as best I can distill it into one sentence is this: He wants to speak out against doping, educate people about the dangers of doping, and someone offered him one of the biggest soapboxes in the sports world to get up on and proclaim his message.
The catch is that he’d have to testify at the Floyd Landis hearings. And the point of his testimony would be to refute claims that microdoses of testosterone don’t help recovery during long stage races.
[Scientifically speaking, the claims of the Landis side are correct, the studies to date on the use of steroids as a recovery aid have not shown any clear evidence that the technique works.]
Papp’s testimony was meant to suggest a motive for why Landis would dope before Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour.
The thing is, USADA didn’t need to show a motive. The whole issue boils down to whether or not the evidence — the lab findings — prove that Landis doped. If it does, no motive is needed. If it doesn’t, then convicting a man based on testimony like Joe Papp’s would be a gross miscarriage of justice.
USADA, during the hearings, seemed to be trying to refute the Wiki Defense. The Wiki Defense has been an important tool in explaining to the public why Landis is innocent, but in the arbitration hearings Team Landis stuck to the core issue — whether or not the evidence proves he doped. Some time in the near future, we’ll see whose approach convinces the arbitrators.
I understand that by participating in the Landis hearings Joe Papp was able to reach a bigger audience. But what bothers me is that this comes at the expense of Floyd Landis, and that didn’t have to be. The reality is that USADA didn’t need to put him on the stand, and Papp didn’t need to testify in order for USADA to make their case (or, for that matter, for Papp to be able to reach out to others).
Either the scientific evidence proves Landis did it, or it doesn’t. And if the scientific evidence doesn’t prove Landis did it, then nothing Joe Papp has to say about his own experiences should have any bearing on the outcome. Actually, regardless of whether the scientific evidence proves Landis doped, nothing Joe Papp testified about should have any bearing on the outcome.
Even if he hadn’t participated in the Landis hearings, Joe Papp could still have been out there telling people what it was like to be in the belly of the doping beast and come out alive. And he could still have served as a cautionary tale for others. And he would have done it without harming someone else. It’s a shame Joe Papp chose the path he did, because it muddies the message he’s trying to get out — that doping is not worth the risk to one’s health and well-being.
There is a web site – called, ironically enough ADAMS.
.
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory.id=340
.
There are a million better ways to do things than the way that the WADA requires information from athletes, but the bottom line is that trying to keep someone informed of your whereabouts 24/7 for 3 months in advance is nearly impossible, particularly when the WADA requires 24 hours notice of a change in your whereabouts.
.
It’s funny too – in Canada at least, even the Police aren’t allowed to slap a gps bracelet on convicted child molesters without jumping through some pretty significant hoops, because the Canadian public and legal system requires a high level of justification for that kind of intrusion. The WADA whereabouts requirements are essentially a 24/7 monitoring bracelet. (They make monitoring bracelets that keep a check on blood alcohol levels too…….why not testosterone levels????? Somewhere, somehow, with the mere suggestion of that going out into the universe, DP just got wood I’m sure).
.
The WADA has no need to get warrants, no need to prove that such measures are required for them to do their job, no need to justify the system to any kind of overseeing body. Even the Police are under the scrutiny of the Attorney General and other Governmental bodies, but the WADA operates without answering to anybody, and operates in a way that would be unacceptable in any other part of our society.
.
If it’s justifyable to require all of the elements that WADA stipulates from athletes, because preventing the use of drugs in sport is so important that it justifies intrusions and violations of basic privacy rights, then who in society would it not be justifyable for?
.
What if WADA took it upon themselves to make sure that artists, politicians, teachers, or students weren’t on drugs? Could they just get a mandate from the international union of teachers, or give themselves the mandate, copy/paste their system, and start to test and require whereabouts from those members of society?
.
What union or association in their right mind would give that mandate?
Rant-
Come on down to St. Louis next week. It’ll be fun.
Also, on the Joe Papp thing…That all looked like a feeble attempt to disprove the science on the ADA’s part. I thought that was against the rules.
Mr Adams – that is the best web site for WADA info I have come across – THANKS.
–
Tongue in cheek!!! – “Would you consider a a gps bracelet okay if it came in a variety of colors? Not just basic anthracite or black….(°L°) – How about if you got an Ipod that went with it? Free of charge of course…?
Or as has been suggested – If you ain’t got nothin’ to hide – what’s wrong with having one to match and accessorize? (°L°) – Oh yeah – we are living in interesting times….
–
So having just perused it – and I recommend it to everyone who has interest in the matter – much may be gleaned from there.
–
It would seem that all discussion about a justice system that is like our western one in the States and Canada – is pretty much of a waste of time…maybe – Consider this:
–
“The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is the international independent organization created in 1999 to promote, coordinate, and monitor the fight against doping in sport in all its forms.
Composed and funded equally by the sports movement and governments of the world, WADA coordinated the development and implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code (Code), the document harmonizing anti-doping policies in all sports and all countries.
Statutes
WADA is a Swiss private law Foundation. (°L°) – Its seat is in Lausanne, Switzerland, and its headquarters are in Montreal, Canada.
–
So William or Mr Hue since you seem sharpest about the law – under the Statutes – what does this suggest to you?
Well, Morgan, truth is I know little about Swiss law, and couldn’t readily find anything online. But I will make a few general comments.
Our legal system is based in large part on the British common law system (accept for Louisiana, which was influenced by the Napoleonic Code due to its French heritage). We (in theory) hold that a person is innocent until proven guilty, has a variety of rights in respect to what the authorities can do (right against unreasonable search and seizure, arrest, self-incrimination, double jeopardy, to name a few). We have a right to a trial by jury of our peers, the judge is such a trial is supposed to be neutral, serving more as a referee to ensure the parties follow all the rules, laws, etc. An often stated unofficial principle of our legal system is that it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than to punish one innocent person.
I might point out that this system is only for the legal justice system of the various governmental levels of the US; private entities are not necessarily bound to follow these for there own purposes. Your boss, for example, might very well search you office/desk and take job action against you if he were to find something prohibited by company policy. Or more to point, US Cycling, or USADA are not necessarily bound by the constitution.
Other countries due have different legal systems, based on different principles. In some countries you are presumed guilty until proven innocent, your rights may be quite different from those that obtain here, and trials may be conducted entirely differently than here. In France, as I understand, the judge takes quite an active role in determining the outcome, questioning witnesses etc. So, why we can perhaps argue on a philosophical basis that WADA/UCI should follow certain procedures, give riders certain rights, and refrain from certain actions without probably cause, there may be no legal basis to this and people from different countries, used to different legal systems, may not feel that the present anti-doping system is flawed.
That being said, I can understand why the WADA is interested in tracking the whereabouts of athletes for OoC testing. It is theoretically possible that a rider could, during the off-season or during anytime he was not in actual competition, use PES to train harder/longer and improve his conditioning more than would be otherwise possible. It is then theoretically possible that this rider could gradually wean himself of the drug while retaining at least some of his improved condition so that he had a competitive advantage while still testing clean. Surprise testing would combat such a scenario, and in order to do surprise testing, the agency needs to have some idea of where the rider actually is.
You can access the actual forms used and instructions here:
http://www.uci.ch/modello2.asp?1stLevelID=C&level1=1&level2=16&idnews=3220&Language=ENG
They are pretty detailed, you have to account for your whereabouts on a daily basis. although it seems that you just have to state you are training from your permanent residence on such and such days, and not be so detailed as to have to say “on Tuesday I am riding out Rt. 3 to Centerville and on Wednesday I am riding on Rt. 4 out to Smalltown and back.
Well, enough ramblings for now, time for lunch.
Thank you for your prompt response William – to this statement of yours: “It is then theoretically possible that this rider could gradually wean himself of the drug while retaining at least some of his improved condition so that he had a competitive advantage while still testing clean.” – At another time in my life I worked with body-builders and it was Known as “peaking”…there seems to be a period when an athlete who dopes still retains the benefit of the doping process but would be tested “clean” since the substances are no longer administered…
–
I have nothing against WADA doing testing – what I find objectionable is that the testing has also become a stick to beat the athlete with. But this maybe merely the “appearance” of such – not the reality…I will read what you have kindly supplied.
Morgan:
I agree that the WADA appears to be running somewhat amok. Their unofficial philosophy seems to tend more towards “better we nail 10 innocent athletes than let one guilty one go free.” To what extent this is due to the organization operating from a different legal system and to what extent it is due too them “being on a mission” is hard to tell. Certainly there have been cases in the US where someone was railroaded or where there was outrage when a seemingly guilty party got off on the proverbial technicality.
Now, the change gears: consider the question of Botre and his role. If the meeting is closed, perhaps he will be able and willing to break the omerta. “Now don’t quote me on this, but . . . ” Or he could just be simply “translating” all the technical information into terms the arbs could understand better without offering any judgements about the validity of either sides arguements. Or he could be taking an active role, forcefully arguing for a particular verdict. Again, I must contrast this to the US jury trial system: no such expert would be allowed to assist the jury in its deliberations, it would be up to the lawyers in direct and/or cross examination to get experts to explain things so the jury can understand. Since Botre is affiliated with WADA, this does give the appearance of giving them an unfair advantage.
What role he takes can also be influenced by what role the arbs want him to take. If they request he not offer opinions on the validity of any testimony, but merely to explain things to them, he might have less room to unduly influence the verdict. But if the actively solicit opinions, or at least allow him to freely offer opinions, then he may have a major impact. Unfortunately, I doubt we will even know.
Jeff.
Pretty ironic that WADA’s system is called ADAMS. Sounds like it would work for the UCI, but given the turf wars between the UCI and WADA, I’m not surprised that the UCI wouldn’t take advantage of such a tool. It makes a whole lot more sense to use an online, database-driven system than having to resort to documents and faxes.
James,
I’m seriously thinking about it. I’ve got some PTO time available. At this point, it’s a matter of whether my work load is flexible enough that I can take the time.
Morgan and William,
Interesting discussion going there. And William, thanks for the link to the athlete locator forms.
– Rant
Regarding Joe Papp: “And the point of his testimony would be to refute claims that microdoses of testosterone don’t help recovery during long stage races.” The idea that one rider’s testimony that microdoses of T helped his recovery from stages can refute claims that it doesn’t is, well, stupid. If you really believe something will help your recovery, it will (or at least you will believe it did after the fact). It is the difference between well designed peer-reviewed studies and testimonials. Sort of like this:
http://www.pentawater.com/team.shtml
I’m holding you completely responsible Rant – You had to go ask a simple question about Dr Botre (;-)))…As to “swan-song” – consider this: As a journalist – responsible to keeping us informed – us being in different parts of the world – who would, like go to the last ride of Discovery – like lemmings off a cliff – cannot due to and/or financial grounds…basically – I see it as a part of your “responsibility” to your readers….really…I think you can be pretty inventive, given the right motivation…do you see where I’m heading with this? (;-))))…
–
William – it is now just after 8 in the morning here – I have read through the UCI “whereabouts” form and the UCI site…No I am not completely “anal retentive” but I am serious about understanding the cycling situation today.
–
My impression on first perusal is that the UCI form to an inexperienced reader does seem absurdly “intrusive” and complicated given that most people tend to get confused if what they are reading is not of the “fifteen second” sound bite variety of information, or are completely “put-off” by legal wording documents…I am not surprised that “riders” feel very resentful for the “big-brother impression” that the document gives.
–
Having accepted that WADA and the UCI were not formed with “our personal” take on the justice system – I still find that there are things in their public presentations of themselves that really annoy me and make me respond with suspicion.
–
For instance – the significance of “private law” foundation – jars against the impression that WADA is a “legal” organization that is formed by a democratic process…where there is actual input from ALL parties concerned. My impression is that a group who felt that “doping” was out of control was the only group that was involved in the creation of this body.
–
To me the question is NOT that doping is or is not rampant in sports…but rather the “fairness” of the organization who is seen as being the “authority” who deals with the situation and the manner in which they conduct and react to their “membership” group.
–
While my boss does have the right to come to my desk at my work and go through it – after all, I am working for him and the “desk” is his – I do not feel it unjust that he can do this – it is his desk, I am just working at it. If I am going to endanger his company by acting or doing illicit things while at work, it is not his “fault” that I am too self involved to see this situation clearly, because I misunderstand that my desk is not my private sphere…
–
So – yes – the UCI and WADA do have a major “public image” problem. On the one hand, they wish to present themselves as a “legal” body that “produces the laws and rules” by which its’ membership must comport themselves – but at the same time trying to come across as a democratically formed group is not working at all.
–
There is a complete lack of knowledge on their part as to the “impression” that they are giving to the outside general public. From the outside – one can see this as them “lording” over their membership without the members having any say so in how they will be governed. One is left with the impression that there are clearly “defined” rules of conduct – but then one comes on the reality that WADA and the UCI do not have to behave in accordance with the rules they themselves have established. Ergo we have this present situation.
Morgan, you said it succinctly in your last paragraph. WADA/UCI expect the athletles to behave in a strictly monitored manner and to obey all the rules and WADA/UCI behave in whatever way suits them to meet their end results. But it is interesting to note Papp’s reaction to WADA/USADA – he felt he was treated fairly by them. Well of course he was. He cheated, he admitted it, case closed with a bonus of an all expense paid trip to Tour de Landis.
William,I had a look at the athlete locator form and there is no question that it is thorough but in the fight against doping something like that is needed although, as some of you have mentioned, there are certainly ways that contacting the UCI can be made easier. Texting anyone. I think that form would even help on a personal note. Can you imagine having staff plan 3-4 months in advance and knowing what they will be doing on any specific day. I may use it.
I. Frank, It is amazing what marketers can sell. Clean water is good for you. Amazing.
Luc – here is a moment in time that says it clearly – notice the unintended “double-bind”: “A statement by the UCI earlier this month said Valverde was innocent until proven guilty, but added: “According to UCI regulations, and to safeguard the reputation of the world championships…” – you can’t have it both ways. If the UCI has suddenly found “democracy” fine and good – but – if they are also trying to force Valverde by putting the squeeze on his Federation…you should not try and mix up the two – not if you are trying to be clear on your intent.
–
What Joe Papps’ words imply may not be how he actually feels. I get the impression that a large part of his “statement” was in effect putting out a “public” image of himself. Now there is nothing wrong with this – except most of Mr Papps’ seems to be formed “after the fact” and do not seem well thought out – they conflict with each other. Now it is possible that Mr Papp is completely confused about himself or he may just be trying to “spin” his new image – my impression is that he is “spinning” and doesn’t really understand the process – therefore the public sense of “conflicting” messages that he is putting out. (°L°)
Morgan, I suppose there is nothing quite like a having personal crisis in public to actually find out about yourself and the impact that single words can have. The vast majority of us will never, fortunately, have that experience. We have seen how well Floyd Landis has matured in the past year as a result of this fiasco and how everything he says is measured and balanced. I’ve tried to imagine how i would have reacted to the crisis had i been presented with his scenario and i think i would have responded in a similar manner. FL was much lambasted by the press for his Jack Daniels defense but i can see where he was coming from. He was blindsided with these doping allegations and being innocent and naive to the nefarious motives of the press, offered explanations. The fallout as a result of these ‘explanations’ were, in some ways, what has worked against him. Armstrong learned long ago what he could say and what he couldn’t say to the press. A pack of hyenas comes to mind, (sorry rant, i know it’s your profession). Now FL is doing much better despite the odd slip that were mostly out of his control ie Lemond.
I don’t know Luc – I see Rant as more “wolf” then hyena…given that hyenas may look like they’re in the hound family – but unlike the hyena – the wolf seldom eats carrion unless he’s starving (;-))…Rant – through his writing has always been honorable – that is why I came on his forum and wanted to put in my two cents – you know – just to murk up the already murky waters…(°L°)…
–
I was once a member of the “entertainment” world – if nothing else – one has to become aware of what he/she says to the media. Once it gets out there – forget about it – you are stuck – but – it is also strongly expected and hoped for – that the “public” also has to learn that the “persona” that is in the media is just that – a persona!
–
We the public have to take some responsibility too. If we don’t – then all we are showing is our own “secret” feelings for any subject… which tend to be biased to what we like, what we don’t like and what we hope…none of these three should be considered as “reality” – rather what they are – our own biased personal beliefs.
–
When Floyd “shot from the hip” with the JD story – that was him being “Floyd” the normal guy – he hadn’t quiet awakened to the fact that doing his thing – by winning the Tour – that “Floyd” was a thing of his past.
–
The public tends to be schizo about their heroes – they want “superman” but they want Superman to be just like them…while this is basically what we can call being human – in the real world – a prominent person does not have this liberty. WHETHER HE LIKE IT OR NOT – this is the “price” of being a celebrity – the public is CONSTANTLY judging him. So it may be nice to read that Floyd “chugged” a few beers with whoever he is noted as riding with – it is not a very good idea for his “public image” – this by the way is a complete misnomer – “Public Image” has nothing to do with Public BUT everything to do with Image.
–
Why isn’t it good for Floyd – well – because people who want to project his image as just a “dumb jock – a jock who is so dumb that he “juiced” even knowing that TESTING was going to be done – Floyd is not dumb – No one with only a few cylinders running would be smart enough to “change” the game plan to fight those who oppress him. BUT those who oppress him will use this part of his “homey” image as a weapon against him.
–
Now Floyd could react to this as – “screw’em, I’m not going to stop drinking beer with buddies just because…” what ever – but if he does – he should also realize that HE is giving the opposition the means to attack his character.
–
Floyd has every right to react with “indignation” to LeMond – this is not bad, in my opinion. After all – LeMond attacked Floyd, not only that, but because the ARBS did not DQ LeMond as a witness who is presenting “hearsay” testimony, Floyd is within his right – but again – some thought has to go into this. Some “attacks” you fight right at the moment – others you “let get away” – because it does nothing to further your cause. It is of course “easy” for me or anyone to Monday Night Quarterback this – but quiet a different matter when you are the one who it is happening to.
–
Sadly – it is also true that the “public” is not all pure of heart and filled with good wishes. There are those who take joy when a prominent person hits the pavement face first – so they can say – “See, he ain’t much”….!
–
The proof of who Floyd is ON THE BIKE is the only thing that we should concern ourselves with. Floyd is Mr Gorilla when he sits in that saddle – This title wasn’t “given” to him – he earned it! You know Luc – Gorillas are vegetarians – but don’t mess with them – they are gorillas! It don’t matter how you or I may “think” or “feel” about gorillas – fact is – they are.
–
I hope Floyd reads this: NO ONE CAN TAKE AWAY WHAT FLOYD HAS ACCOMPLISHED!!! Not the UCI not WADA or the media or the public. None of those people were in that saddle to ride as Floyd was ridding to get where he is today. I hope Floyd – you just keep ridding – it is a thing of beauty to see.
(°L°)
Right on! Morgan
Morgan,
Regarding your last paragraph: Hear, hear!
Luc,
No offense taken about the pack of hyenas comment. I personally think that the mainstream media sometimes resembles a venue of vultures feasting on roadkill. And you’re right, Floyd Landis has definitely grown into the role that was unfortunately thrust upon him. Perhaps once he’s done racing, he should consider working in crisis management. He’s got a wealth of experience to draw on already.
Rant, Hope you don’t mind me digressing for a bit. I don’t know if you’ve heard about the story of the little girl, Madeleine, that disappeared in Portugal a few months ago. A tragic affair in every sense but one even more tragic by the seemingly Inspector Clouseau-like blunderings of the Portuguese police. They have now put the parents under suspicion because a sniffer dog came up with a scent of the girl in a rental car they rented after the disappearance of their daughter. DNA samples seem to confirm the presence of the girl also. The parents are suggesting that the scent and DNA could have come from their daughter’s cuddly cat toy that the mother has carried with her everywhere since the disappearance of her daughter. The police tried to force the mother into a confession by repeatedly showing her a video of the frantic sniffer dogs sniffing the car while they interrogated her for 18 hours. During this whole episode the mother and father steadfastly proclaimed their innocence. They have returned to England this morning.
The fact that they came under suspicion of the police was of no surprise to me. A couple weeks after the disappearance of the girl i was having dinner with friends of my wife in London . One friend, a police officer, stated that to his police nose things did not appear right in the case and that even though it was early in the investigation, he suspected the parents.
The reason i bring this tragic case up, (and hopefully the parents get some resolution to their daughters disappearance) is with regard to the attitude that the police officer had. I suspect that he was one of many officers that felt the parents did it right from the start. They see guilty people every day in their work and so suspecting everyone right off the bat is what they are trained to do and it is second nature to them. Guilty until proven innocent. Rant i hope you can see where i was going with this. There are certain individuals who will allways, until presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary, stick to their guns and not be swayed from their initial position.
A word on Joe Papp. In his testimony he said he was on various drugs at the times he raced. This drugs included among every thinkable drug also EPO, a drug which is proven to increase your performance 3-5%. And following the increased performance you recover faster, right.
What makes me laugh is, that somebody seriously believe, that mikrodosing of testosterone cause an effect if you are on all this other drugs.
I don´t know, what the deal with USADA was, maybe no charge for his traffiking or the use of the other drugs, but to choose this hearing for Anti Doping Promotions, like Joe Papp stated, seems ridiculous to me and far away from the real reasons.
Luc,
I’ve followed the story, but you’ve got some information that didn’t make it into the most recent article I saw. I get exactly what you’re saying.
Dumas,
Joe Papp’s doping sounds to me like an uncontrolled (in more ways than one) scientific experiment. I’m not sure that the conclusion he reached can be supported by all the other confounding factors. I think that his appearance, along with Greg LeMond’s, veered away from what the case was supposed to be about — whether or not LNDD’s data proves that Floyd Landis doped. Everything I’ve read and heard about that data, and a lot of the testimony at the hearing, supports the argument that the data doesn’t support that conclusion.
– Rant
Ben Franklin was one who advocated missing a conviction on 10 (or even 100) guilty people in order to insure that not even one innocent person would be punished.
Bismarck was one who advocated punishing up to 10 innocent people if it would help insure that not even one guilty person would go free.
Dick Pound has shown where his sympathies lie.