[As I write this, I should be working on another project, instead. But tonight I’m taking some time off, given the news of the day.]
While many may disagree with me, today’s outcome in the USADA vs. Floyd Landis arbitration is probably the worst thing, for the long term, that could have happened. Landis’ case, because he chose to have a public hearing and because he made all of his defense public, has opened our eyes to a wide range of problems within the anti-doping world.
It is a story I wish would never have happened, but it is an important story and it still deserves our attention. The system is broken and in need of repair. No athlete gets a fair hearing. As Eddie Pells of the Associated Press put it:
Landis didn’t hide from the scrutiny — invited it, in fact — and now has been found guilty by the closest thing to a fair trial any accused athlete will get.
In a nutshell, Pells tells us the problem. No athlete can ever get a fair trial. Can you imagine a story about a criminal case where the reporter said the same thing? That the defendant got the closest thing to a fair trial? One hopes, at least, that in the justice system people do get fair trials.
And consider the irony: The anti-doping system exists to ensure that sports lives up to our ideal of fair play. And yet, the anti-doping system doesn’t play fair. How are we to have faith in those who police sport if they do so in a manner antithetical to the values they’re supposed to be upholding?
With today’s ruling, I’m afraid that the system will go on as it has, trampling on any who have the misfortune to get caught up in it. Yes, I know that there are those who cheat and get caught, some fight and some don’t. I’m a believer in taking personal responsibility for one’s actions. If you’ve been caught with your hand in the cookie jar, it’s best to admit it and take the punishment.
But with every system, whether it’s the judicial system or the anti-doping system or some other system, there comes a time when an innocent person will be wrongly accused. This is the acid test for how well conceived the system is.
You can start from the presumption of innocence. Or you can start from the presumption of guilt. But if you don’t allow the accused access to the evidence that may exonerate him or her, and if you deem something to be correct without allowing the accused to examine whether or not that something (like the science behind a given test) is, in fact, correct, then you’ve stacked things in favor of the prosecution. And you’ve made it impossible for someone to defend themselves effectively — which will lead to convictions almost 100% of the time. (And so far, that’s USADA’s record in arbitration.)
This is not justice, whatever else you may wish to call it. It is a sham. The system we have for adjudicating anti-doping cases is a sham, plain and simple. The problems with the system that Floyd Landis has highlighted in his 14-month struggle to clear his name need to be addressed and corrected, so that no other athlete will have to endure what he has had to over the past year.
It should not take so long to bring a case to hearing, and it should not take so long for an accused athlete to be given a decision. The anti-doping agencies should be required to provide the athlete with any evidence that might exonerate him or her. Neither side should be able to withhold evidence during discovery — as USADA did in the Landis case.
If the idea of having an arbitration system is to ensure a rapid decision, then the arbitration system failed miserably in Floyd Landis’ case. Our standard judicial system would have served him better. And arguably at a lower cost.
As it stands today, the ADAs have a good case to point to whenever someone tests positive in the future. “Remember Floyd Landis?” they’ll say. “We destroyed him, and we can destroy you, too.” The amount of money an athlete needs to defend himself in this system is ridiculously large. More than most of us will ever have. Who can afford that?
As it stands today, LNDD has gotten a slap on the wrist for a bit of sloppiness here and there. And a warning — nudge, nudge, wink, wink — that if they don’t clean up their act, the next time might result in the dismissal of a case. Call me a cynic, but somehow I doubt that will ever happen. But it plays nice in the media right now, as it makes for copy that suggests that at least the panel considered Landis’ defense.
As it also stands today, the ADAs have a new tool in their arsenal that would not be allowed for the defense: The ability to perform tests on other samples, not from the same date, for the purposes of establishing a doping offense — despite initial screening tests showing no violation. The defense, on the other hand, is still limited to arguing their case based solely on the alleged violation. No other evidence — like a longitudinal study to demonstrate the athlete’s innocence — is allowed.
The deck is now even more squarely stacked against the accused, with little recourse for the athlete except an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Such appeals, however, rarely result in a win for the athlete. Even in the Landaluze case, the judgment of the CAS did not overturn the original arbitration panel’s decision.
If I were competing at the same level as Floyd Landis, I would be very concerned about today’s result. Whether you think Landis is innocent or guilty, there is nothing in today’s decision that gives me any confidence that an innocent person can prevail.
Had the decision gone the other way — in favor of Landis — the anti-doping system would be under pressure to fix its problems. But now, they may well feel free to operate with greater impunity. It’s a sad day, indeed.
Floyd Landis and his defense team have 30 days to plot their next move. The road ahead, should they decide on an appeal, is fraught with danger. If I were in his shoes, I almost certainly would appeal (assuming I could afford it), but he has a family to consider and his whole future ahead of him. An appeal will be costly (financially and otherwise), and even more devastating if he were to lose a second time. Whatever Floyd Landis chooses to do, right now is a time for careful reflection on the options in front of him. It’s not going to be easy, whatever path he chooses.
Rant, I can always count on you to help me straighten my thought process out, from just a severe gut reaction on my part; you reflect and make sense. I appreciate that. I can’t remember all the reasons that this decision is wrong, chain of custody, wrong sample numbers, procedural errors, etc. I just scream; it’s bloody wrong!!! And the next athlete to be caught in the web will be treated just as unfairly. Going into an Olympic year makes me so uncomfortable. And all of it reminds me of the saying,” absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
You state the problems succinctly Rant.
–
It will be interesting how the media will respond to this circus – will they ignore the very real problem that this “judicial” system in existence is biased, with the singular purpose to squash any fair litigation if an individual does not agree with it.
–
The UCI, WADA, IOC and all their other arms have created their own little fiefdom – they believe that they are able to do whatever they wish – they assume that because they have created rules that are spurious and vague – they can play their game against anyone.
–
This has stopped being simply a “Cycling Issue” – it is evident that it is an issue of questionable legality. Will apathy and inaction on the part of the general public continue – or will they find the “Landis Decision” the final straw that broke the camels back?
–
There are people out there who see this as only “two camps” – one for Landis and think he is being unjustly treated, the one which feels Landis is guilty.
–
The most common accusation of the “Landis is guilty” camp is that everyone who sides with Landis are either in some way seeing this situation because we feel emotionally that Landis is innocent and we do not “look at facts” – or somehow – we are all in favor of doping in sports.
–
On the “Landis is Innocent” camp – we can’t seem top get it across that we are not merely fighting for Floyd – rather – we have looked at the system and it is flawed. Most of us have been trying to remain polite in the face of it all – maybe it is time to take off the kid gloves – put on a brass knuckles as the other side has been doing and stand up for what is right.
–
Maybe it is time to start “burning” our UCI licenses in protest – maybe it is time to bring “strike action” against UCI events. Maybe it is time that good people involved in the scientific aspect of this fiasco stop being passive and start writing to the editors.
–
Maybe – it is simply time to accept that we do not have a “cycling governing body” that is interested in being democratic – rather that it will do anything to stay in “control.”
–
Maybe it is time to show up at UCI sanctioned races with Placards – saying how we feel – maybe its time that EVERY PERSON who has a computer and reads something in the media – ACTUALLY RESPONDS- when it is incorrect or plain false.
–
I’m going to do it – are you? – or are you all just satisfied with having Pattie McQuikie and Pounding Dickie telling you to your face that you are all too stupid to stop them and their cronies. No offense intended to any one person – I’m just speaking my mind.
Just one simple question – do you believe that Landis raced clean, that he did not use substances in quantities that the sport disallows? A simple yes or no answer is all that is required here.
fmk: Yes, I believe Landis raced clean. Now I have one simple question for you: Do you believe that the Anti Doping Organization (in this case, LNDD, USADA, WADA and the UCI) followed its own rules?
fmk,
Based on the evidence, I believe Landis raced clean.
I have a different take on this: the decision is a good one for Floyd. I think everyone could have predicted that it would be 2-1 against right from the start. The 2 Arbs who voted against Landis always seemed to be very clubby with WADA. Remember the conference in Japan they all attended before the hearing? If I were one of them and wanted to retain my standing in the ‘club’ yet felt that the errors in this case were very bad, I would do what they, apparently, have done: reject Floyd’s appeal yet in the decision I would provide a lot of corraboration for Floyd to use in his CAS appeal.
As to the expense of a CAS appeal – why would it be very expensive? Would there be another complete hearing rehearing witnesses, or would it be simply a review of the materials with some briefs and arguments by the lawyers? Surely the Arbs, all three of them, have provided ample material to over-turn this verdict. It reminds me of the Landaluze case, and I think a similar result will happen hear.
There is no credible evidence that Landis did not race clean. There is no Judge in a Court of Law in Europe or North America that would have permitted this case to even get to a finder of fact. Understand this for simplicity; USADA’s case never gets past a motion to dismiss in a court of Law. So a system must be invented to bypass all the due process nicities; a system that, with a nod and wink, pretends to seek truth yet rubber stamps the work of the inept and incompetant. God forbid fmk, that you ever face such a monolith on any issue important to your life. Landis loses in a corrupt and intellectually weak system. He wins anywhere else.
Art,
If only it were as simple as you describe. According to the procedures, the appeal to the CAS is in actuality a brand new case. It is not a review of the current ruling, although that material could no doubt be used. If it happens, it will begin with all new presentations of the evidence, perhaps a new discovery process, and it may easily take up to another year at a similar cost as this first hearing.
…
I can easily envision a Landaluze-type ruling, but I can also envision another ruling just like yesterday’s. Before making that choice, Floyd and his family need to carefully consider their options, along with how likely he would be to prevail.
…
It is not a choice I would wish on anyone. Landis is an innocent man. But should he keep up the fight, or acknowledge that under this system he can’t win and then just walk away?
fmk, clean.
#
It seems to me there are two choices. The first is to simply drop the entire concept of appeal. The athlete is tested, and if A = B, then the case is done and penalty imposed without the athlete having the chance to rebut. Landis showed us that the appeal process is so severely flawed that even having it as a recourse is absurd. It should be dropped.
*
The second is to say “to hell” with WADA, and close ranks on USADA. Thus tie your taxes that support USADA to testing american athletes using only american accredited labs. The advantage of leaving the other foreign labs out of the equation is that blatant disregard to protocol (clearly in play at LNDD for Landis) would not be played out with a nationalistic attitude. Legislators in this county are so blinded by such jingo that we could probably talk them into this as a strategy. After all, we don’t want the french fighting our wars for us, so why do we want them testing our pee?
We’ve had a day to absorb the blow of the Landis decision. We all had steam we needed to vent. I don’t think I disagreed with anything that my fellow blog posters had to say, except perhaps for the unqualified praise for the Campbell dissent (see my last post on “Sucker Punched”).
…
But now I’d like to challenge you and my fellow responders to get into the specifics.
…
Rant, you and others would like FL to appeal. On what grounds? I understand that FL does not exactly NEED grounds, that an appeal in this system is more like a second trial. But there’s no point in an appeal, or a second trial, if it’s going to reach the same result as the first trial.
…
Do you want the opportunity to present new evidence? What kinds of new evidence? Is this evidence available? If you think that the majority decision is wrong, tell us exactly where you think the decision is wrong. Did the majority get the science wrong? Did they fail to understand or to correctly apply the anti-doping rules? If the majority made mistakes, are these the kinds of mistakes that the CAS is likely to recognize and want to overturn?
…
Bill, you state that the Landis case would never have reached a finder of fact in a U.S. or European court of law. I’m not up on my eurolaw, but what grounds would you have relied upon to dismiss the Landis case in the U.S.? Aren’t these grounds fact-based?
…
Bill, I’ll also ask you to comment on Rant’s statement that the Landis case would have been resolved quicker and cheaper in a court of law. I presume you’ve seen what a law firm like FL’s can do, given the relative freedom to proceed in a state or federal court.
…
Just to make it clear … I too think the process was unfair. However, for the moment, we’re stuck with this process, and if FL is going to appeal, he’s also stuck with this process. I’ll also point out to all of you that at the moment, the forces in the world of sport are working to make the anti-doping rules even easier for the ADAs and even more onerous for the athletes. We can rant all we like about the unfair process, but we’re swimming against the tide on this one.
…
Also for the record: I think the majority decision is wrong, and I’m struggling to see if I can articulate specific reasons. I could use some help.
Larry,
I have yet to fully read the majority opinion, so my thoughts will be more fully formed later on. But here’s where I see things at this point. As Bill Hue said to me in an email, the panel seems to believe that WADA’s rules require them to find the lab both credible and competent, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary. If that’s the case, what’s the point of fighting a doping charge to begin with? Where’s the protection for the athletes that Chris Campbell talks about, or that the rules purport to have. Here’s what Bill had to say:
The point of an appeal would be to take it up to the CAS and see if another group of arbitrators agrees with this panel’s majority opinion. If they do, then there’s no point in any further challenges by any athletes ever — regardless of innocence or guilt, regardless of the quality of evidence against them. No one could win, other than the ADAs. The rules place a high burden on the athlete to prove his innocence. Judging by the majority ruling, as I understand it so far, that bar is set so high that no one could ever reach it. Perhaps a CAS appeal would turn that opinion on its ear. Perhaps not.
…
I’ll support Floyd no matter the choice he makes. And I’ll never waver from the knowledge that he won the 2006 Tour. They can take a piece of paper away, they can give the money to Pereiro or someone else. But the guy who truly won the race is Floyd Landis. And that they can’t take away. Ever.
Rant:
Regarding “Fairness to the athlete”: The expense to the athlete makes the process patently unfair. With regards to Landis, he was at least fortunate enough to have access to resources to give him a fighting chance (on the surface, anyhow…and I don’t wish to argue about that!). However, the nature of the offense (testing positive) necessitates the use of experts almost exclusively at a hearing, and for that reason, it is almost impossible for the “average athlete” to compete against the various anti-doping agencies.
A great example of this would be Amber Neben. She tested positive, but eventually proved that the “doping” was unintentional: The banned product was found in a supplement, and wasn’t supposed to be there in the first place. I don’t know the details of her case, nor the amount of money she was forced to spend to hire Jacobs, the experts, or the tests in order to prove her case, but I would imiagine that it was a small fortune. Most athletes simply cannot afford to do that.
So in that sense, I completely agree with you. Something needs to be changed to allow athletes to adequately defend themselves. This isn’t to say that I don’t think that other changes must be made…but the financial disadvantage must be addressed. In just about every criminal court system, the accused are provided with counsel. These hearings, although not criminal (yet!), certainly come close: After all, the taking of someone’s livelihood must at least come close to incarceration, right?
Hey – fmk – directly addressing your questions:”…- do you believe that Landis raced clean, that he did not use substances in quantities that the sport disallows? ”
–
The first question – YES I do!
–
Second question – I do not believe that Landis NEEDED to use substances the sport disallows!!!
–
Now I have a simple question for you – Having had the same opportunity as I – to see and read all that has been transpiring in the Landis situation – Why on earth are you not using your head and asking yourself if this whole thing is not just a bit out of kilter?
Rant –
…
I understand the general argument that “this system is a sham”, but that does not give us grounds to recommend an appeal. The CAS is part of the system we’re complaining about, and the CAS is not going to respond favorably to an argument based on the unfairness inherent in the system.
…
I only see the point of bringing an appeal if we can specifically identify the mistakes that were made by the majority of the USADA arbitrators. I think that there WERE mistakes, though at the moment I’m still trying to work out to my own satisfaction the exact nature of these mistakes.
…
Bill Hue says that this system is stacked against the athlete, and that is true. I think to some extent that all systems of justice are stacked against the accused, notwithstanding guarantees of fair trials and presumptions of innocence. Judges and juries are inclined (at least initially) to believe people in authority. So let’s not get too carried away by the inherent fairness of courts as compared to arbitration panels.
…
However, as compared to court proceedings in general (at least in the U.S. and Europe), the WADA system is less favorable to the athlete in at least three important respects:
1. The WADA rules contain a presumption that the WADA-accredited labs are performing in accordance with the International Standards for Laboratories (ISLs). The athlete has the burden of proving specific violations of the ISLs. Even if the athlete can prove multiple violations of specific ISLs, the lab is still entitled to the presumption that it has otherwise operated in accordance with the ISLs. The WADA rules also seem to require the arbitrators to ignore any instance of lab misconduct that is not addressed in an ISL. In a court, practically speaking, the crime lab is also going to be given considerable benefit of the doubt. But if the defense is able to show specific instances of lab misconduct, the defense can then argue that the lab results cannot be trusted as a general matter. I think this is the crux of the argument made by most of the Landis defenders on this blog: the LNDD screwed up badly as a general matter, so we should throw out the results of their tests even if we cannot show that the screw ups affected the test results.
…
2. The WADA system makes it difficult to come up with good technical defense witnesses. If you work at a WADA lab, you cannot testify for the defense. If you are a technical expert whose work depends on friendly relations with the powers that be in sport (whether it’s WADA, or USADA, or the UCI, or the ASO), you dare not testify in favor of an athlete. The experts that ARE available to testify in favor of athletes come from outside the sports testing establishment, and their testimony can be brushed aside (see paragraph 239 of the main opinion) because their experience differs substantially from that relevant to the operation of a WADA-accredited lab. If the Landis proceeding took place in a court of law, the Landis team would have had the same difficulty finding technical witnesses, but I think a court might have taken this difficulty into account and given greater weight to the testimony of the Landis experts.
…
3. The WADA system seems to be designed to produce 2-1 decisions against the athlete. In the U.S. at least, we have Chris Campbell as the officially sanctioned arbitrator for the athlete. To be fair, Campbell does sometimes vote to convict and sometimes to acquit. The other two arbitrators always vote to convict. And since the same people seem to be selected over and over as arbitrators, the results of these cases seem to be pre-ordained.
…
These three factors are serious obstacles for any accused athlete to overcome, but these obstacles exist (to a lesser degree, I think) in courts of law. It’s not easy to poke holes in the testimony of police experts, regardless of the forum that hears the case. In the courts, there are plenty of judges (and juries) that are generally inclined to convict. So I see the need for reform (I have no hope that we’ll see reforms, but I see the need), but I’m not willing to call the existing system a “sham”. Not yet anyway.
…
Still think we’re better off spending more time showing why the majority decision is wrong, and less time complaining about an arbitration system that’s not going to change.
…
Stephan, ALL due process is expensive. Criminal defendants that can afford to hire expensive counsel, experts, etc., get more justice than poor people stuck with court-appointed counsel. That makes for unequal justice wherever you look. There’s no solution to this problem, but if you want to protect the poor athlete, your best bet is to work to improve the lab procedures. Once the athlete is falsely accused, there’s not much you can do to get around the fact that rich athletes can buy more process than poor athletes.
Larry,
Bummer that I have to get back to the day job in a few minutes. I agree that arguing before the CAS that the system is unfair probably won’t fly. Where I think the prosecution’s case should have fallen apart (aside from Chris Campbell’s dissent) centers on the lab, the pattern of errors in the lab — including inadequate chain of custody documentation, data erased and manipulated without documentation of the erasures or manipulations, data inconsistent with the conclusions it purported to support, and so on. The issue, as I see it, is just how much does the defense need to show to overcome the presumption that the lab has performed within the ISL and that it has performed the tests properly.
—
Lab technicians who are improperly trained, and a lab that does not possess the basic user documentation for an instrument give me pause, as I think it should have done more so for the majority. Coming from a scientific background, I find the behavior of the lab technicians utterly unacceptable in this case. It’s such a basic thing, to carefully document each step of your work. And it’s taught in any good science class, be it chemistry, physics, biology, what have you — even at the most basic levels. But for LNDD’s technicians, apparently, good scientific practice wasn’t a concern here.
—
There were many areas that Team Landis highlighted during the hearings that should, taken as a collective whole (or even taken individually), require this case to be tossed. Imagine, in a criminal court, a search and seizure issue. What if the police had no warrant and couldn’t demonstrate probable cause? In that case, isn’t all the evidence derived from the search thrown out? Finding that the T/E tests were unreliable, and then accepting the IRMS results seems to me to follow along the same lines. Without the T/E tests, the IRMS would never have been performed, therefore the IRMS results should be tossed, too. That would be at least one issue for the CAS, if there is an appeal.
—
I don’t know what standard Team Landis would have to meet, based on the majority opinion, in order to overcome the presumption that the lab has performed everything correctly, or that their errors didn’t affect the end result. I thought Team Landis had demonstrated that very well. But if my initial understanding of the majority is correct, there is essentially no way for Landis (or any other athlete) to overcome that burden. If that’s the case, it’s really not worth the time or effort to proceed. In fact, if that’s the case, there’s no point for any athlete — guilty or innocent — to contest an anti-doping charge. It would be better to just walk away.
—
If the CAS were like a regular judicial system (it’s not), then an appeal by Landis might set a standard in this regard. If he did appeal and win, perhaps it would anyway. That’s certainly a worthy outcome. Is it enough to advise that he fight? I don’t know.
—
There’s a lot to chew over here, for certain. I’m sure that there are many errors of logic and fact that the majority made which, if corrected, would tilt the verdict in Floyd’s favor. But like you, I’m still working all of that out.
In the U.S., if a medical lab or doctor makes a mistake that negatively impacts a patient, they can be sued in a real court of law. Too many patients are told they have diseases or syndromes and then the doctor or lab says, “oops, sorry, not you, it’s the other patient.” Patients are given wrong medications, heck, wrong limbs are amputated. Sometimes doctors are sued when it’s not their fault (birth defects, personal biology, etc).
So…putting aside the question of whether or not Landis and his family want to sue, and the almost sure cry of “Americans are suit crazy” that will come if he does do that, do you or Bill Hue know if he could sue the lab directly for mistakes on medical grounds? I’ve never heard of cases where Americans sue medical facilities in other countries, and the likelihood of a French court finding in his favor is probably less than nothing, but I thought the question was worth asking. Perhaps he could at least force LNDD to pay for his court fees, lost income, if they had to pay a penalty for their incompetence. I wonder, too, if there is any aspect of this case that could be heard in a real U.S. courtoom, that would have a reasonable chance of winning? Maurice Suh specializes in government corruption, and USADA certainly epitomizes that these days.
Debby,
I don’t really know what grounds he might be able to sue on at this point. But I’ll bet Maurice Suh does. And it’s no accident that he’s a part of Floyd’s legal team. That said, I have not heard anything about what their plan is from here. Taking a case to court or continuing on in arbitration will be expensive and time-consuming. It all boils down to whether Floyd and his team think it is worth it to continue. And I have no idea right now which way they’re leaning.
Yesterday (see sucker punched) I pointed out that I thought that it was strange that nobody was stuck on the fact that none of this has answered the basic question of whether or not Floyd obtained an unfair advantage through cheating. Larry did correctly point out that athletes “face disqualification regardless of whether they obtained any advantage from cheating.” Fair enough.
_
As much as I understand his point and the main thrust of his posts, I think that we are talking past one another. Larry is correct when he says that these are the rules and athletes are not given a choice but to comply. He also correctly questions what the point is of an appeal, based upon the rules that Floyd must deal with. But of course we are talking about two different things.
_
My question was not whether Floyd broke the rules. Or if he could be found innocent based upon the rules (weird thought – to be found innocent). I would contend that this whole charade hasn’t come close to resolving any of that and never will. My question was whether or not the rules ensure a balanced field of play and whether or not WADA’s system actually provides for a better product. Forget about the obvious question regarding whether WADA is really intent on catching cheats, or if it is merely a vehicle to advance the status of it’s members.
_
I guess none of this has anything to do with the case at hand – directly. Floyd will not be riding his bike with the peloton next year just because anyone realizes that the rules and the system suck. But that was the thrust of my question, never the less.
_
I had hoped that Floyd would win his appeal mostly because the audacity of what he did on the bike was legendary. For the AAA to say that he is guilty based upon a lawyerly interpretation of the rules, rather than based upon factual evidence is not very satisfying (of course they weren’t actually finding him guilty but rather finding that he couldn’t prove his innocence – a statement that makes my brain hurt with its illogic). It misses the whole point of cycling. Physical prowess (legs, muscle, lungs, and heart), the ability to tolerate pain, to revel in being a prisoner of the route, has a lot to do with why we watch races. But that’s not only why we watch races. The rider’s body undertakes the struggle, but the soul is what the spectators watch. In a very raw way, we are watching men push the human body to its limits so that we can see what the human will and soul is capable of doing. So, at its very essence we are looking for men to perform miracles — win or lose. Doping needs to be targeted because it tarnishes this, but not to the point where we question every extraordinary effort. Cycling is not like a rugby match where the final score is all that matters – the story of cycling is much deeper than that.
_
Sorry that this is long on feelings and short on thoughtful ideas.
Larry…I know that “all due process is expensive.” You mean that OJ might not have beaten the murder rap if he had used public defenders? (sorry, I couldn’t help being sarcastic…nothing meant by it). The only point I was trying to make is that if we are discussing problems with the entire system, then certainly that is one of them: There is no place to go for an athlete who cannot hire a “dream team” defense…or, quite frankly, even pay for a public defender. In order to challenge a positive finding, you must hire an attorney and at least one expert. The expert costs alone will run over $10K at a minimum, and then you aren’t going to be competitive against an national organization that has almost unlimited resources. While Landis was able to spend, and he still lost, what chance for a fair hearing does a “semi-pro” domestic rider have if he/she tests positive if they cannot even hire an attorney? Anyhow, that was all I was trying to say.
–
Without commenting on the accuracy of the lab work in the Landis case, I would agree with you regarding the need for accurate lab work in the future, and for the need for labs and testing personnel to follow the protocol procedures.
–
Perhaps the labs should be held to the same standard as the athletes? Athletes are strictly liable for any substance in their body, regardless of source or intent. Perhaps labs should have a “strict liability” standard regarding their protocol? In other words, equal the playing field by ridding the code of the language which requires athletes to not only prove that there were errors/omissions in the lab with regards to protocol, but that those errors/omissions caused the positive finding. While it would increase the costs of testing tremendously, it would make for better test results. Just an idea….
Michael,
Certainly, the ruling doesn’t address whether Floyd gained an unfair advantage from cheating. They don’t really care whether he did or he didn’t, they care whether he violated a rule against using synthetic testosterone. And they can’t really say he gained an unfair advantage, because the science of low dose testosterone as a recovery agent hasn’t been shown to be valid. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the only studies on the subject that have been done fail to prove that it would assist in recovery. No benefit equals no unfair advantage in my book, regardless of anecdotal evidence by one person or another. (Testosterone has many other effects, and some may confuse those effects for improved recovery, however.)
—
Now, to the question of whether I think he gained an unfair advantage by cheating. No, I don’t, because I don’t believe he cheated. Regardless of what Mr. Brunet and Mr. McLaren say.
—
My two cent’s worth. FWIW.
Stephan, LOL! didn’t realize who was the recipient of my “Justice 101” lecture! Sorry to have belabored the obvious to a trial attorney. You’re right, the semi-pro rider does not have a chance. Of course, the top flight pro does not appear to have a chance, either. It’s a level playing field, in that sense.
…
Michael, I think in theory that the WADA rules DO ensure a fairer field of play. I’m no expert, but I believe that there are banned drugs on the WADA list that can be used to improve performance. Without some ADA-style effort, there will be athletes who will use these drugs to gain a competitive edge. Other athletes will feel compelled to take these drugs to stay competitive. These drugs all have short or long term negative health risks. An athlete should not be compelled to risk his health in order to compete. (Yeah, this is “ADA 101”, but what else can I say?)
Talk about irony: I had put a hold on a copy of Positively False at the library and a few days ago received notice it was in. We had planned on going to the library today. Then the verdict came in. I sort of have a feeling of what’s the point now, but I checked it out anyway. I’ll probably end up reading it a a few days.
I don’t think Landis doped, and I don’t think that, even if he did, that USADA really made a good case that he did. But then I also think that OJ was guilty, so what do I know.
I had thought that SOP on suspensions was that it was retro-active to when the rider was originally suspended, which for Landis should have been August 2006. Kind of seems to me they slapped an extra year, almost, on him.
I don’t understand how anyone who follows cycling believes Landis is innocent of doping. You might say you don’t believe the evidence is enough to convict. But in the cycling climate we have (and had in the 2006 Tour), there is no Tour victory without dope. Landis was the leader of the most notoriously doped up team in the peloton, and he had made his bones riding for and with some of the most doped up riders. Landis has never said or done squat against doping in the peloton–he remains loyal to the cycling omerta to the bitter end. Even after the UCI and the European pros have abandoned him, diehard fans still believe there is some kind of nefarious conspiracy against the riders, and fantasize that the riders want Landis’ misguided campaign to succeed. Reality check people–Landis dishonest defense damaged cycling’s credibility still further, and the only person he did it for was himself. If Landis was a hero among cyclists, wouldn’t you think there would be some verification?
It’s a measure of the success of his PR campaign that so many suckers actually think Landis never doped and told the whole truth. Cycling can be thankful it didn’t actually effect the appeal results, and that future cheaters will think twice before attempting something like this again.
The real loser is Pereiro. Hope he sues Floyd for a trillion for loss of recognition as a result of Fraud Landis cheating.