If you haven’t already seen it, Judge William (Bill) Hue, who’s been following and commenting on the Floyd Landis case for some time, has published a deconstruction of the arbitrator’s decision in the Floyd Landis case over at Trust But Verify. Judge Hue, along with TBV, wrote a series of articles earlier this year called “Judging Floyd,” which looked at various aspects of the case in the run-up to the hearings conducted last May at the Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California. For those following Landis’ travails, this latest offering is another must-read article about the case.
Judge Hue’s current article examines the arbitration process, how the process is structured under the World Anti-Doping Agency’s rules, and how that structure ensures that an accused athlete will be found guilty — regardless of the evidence in the athlete’s favor — much more often than not. To put it bluntly, the game is rigged. And not in Landis’ or any other athlete’s favor.
There are many contrasts between how the WADA arbitration process works and what we’re used to in terms of jurisprudence. While many countries have constructed their systems on the presumption of innocence, many others have built theirs on the presumption of guilt. In most cases, however, the accused is able to challenge the evidence against them. There are, in WADA-land, many more presumptions that effectively stack the deck against an athlete — even a very well-funded athlete — to the point that it is virtually impossible for the athlete to prove his or her innocence.
Judge Hue takes the time to discuss the creation of WADA’s anti-doping code, the rules established for trying an anti-doping case, dissect the award (the finding against Landis), address the special procedures used in this case (including how the pool of potential arbitrators for a case is constructed) and analyzes Chis Campbell’s strongly-worded dissent. In addition, he makes the point that athletes have no choice in these cases. They’re stuck with WADA’s cobbled-together-to-ensure-that-no-athlete-ever-gets-justice system.
As he builds to his conclusion, Judge Hue notes that:
Anti-doping policy, prosecution and adjudication are all just adjuncts of anti-doping enforcement. Such enforcement cannot be entrusted to Courts of Law under the Code because basic individual rights form the foundation of such systems. The Anti-Doping Code cannot leave its political goal to chance. It has thus devised a Star Chamber [link added] system to rubber stamp its determination of dopers in sport. In this system, prosecution of an innocent to an adjudication of guilt is as effective as a successful prosecution of an actual doper.
Any one of us, and athletes in particular, could someday be called into a Star Chamber. Floyd Landis was.
Judge Hue continues:
The WADA code must be changed. The noble goal of ridding sport of cheaters has become obsessive. As noble as that goal is, once it becomes so obsessive that it threatens to destroy that which it aspires to protect, as we see happening today in cycling, for example, it has become dangerous. Cycling has reached the point where the fight against doping threatens to destroy not only its structure but its rich history as well. By modifying the system so that it serves its purpose and balances that purpose with respect for basic human rights, all “stakeholders” will benefit. The time to change is now.
Absolutely right, the WADA code must be changed. In about one month’s time, WADA will be holding a conference in Madrid to address changes to the code. If you’re concerned about how the current system is constructed, the time to raise your voice is now. Write to your elected officials in Washington, DC. Federal tax dollars pay for the majority of USADA’s budget, and provide a substantial contribution to WADA’s budget as well. Write to USADA (or the anti-doping agency in the country where you live) and tell them of your opposition to the way business is currently done, and demand that the system be reformed.
If any good is to come from the Landis case, it should be that the system gets reformed to ensure that future cases will be conducted in a manner that respects the rights of athletes, while meting out appropriate punishment to those who are proven to be cheating. As the Landis case has shown, once an athlete is accused by the current system, he or she will be found guilty virtually 100% of the time.
Whether you believe Landis was guilty or innocent, this should be a concern: Eventually (if it hasn’t happened already), an innocent athlete will be punished for a crime he or she didn’t commit. That person will lose their good name, their reputation and their ability to earn a living for a minimum of two years (four, if certain people would have their way). If the anti-doping system is allowed the power to do such things, then the standard of proof should be much higher than it currently is. And the system should have real checks and balances to ensure that an accused athlete is given a truly fair hearing.
No good comes from innocent people being wrongly punished. The system must be changed.
Rant, I’m posting as “Larry” on Judge Hue’s article at TBV. All are free to respond to me, either over there or over here.
…
Rant, there’s no hope for reform of the WADA system at this point. Outside of the rarified air here and at TBV, there’s little call for reform. Any “summit” convened by the ADAs will focus on how to catch more dopers, and fairness be damned. Our efforts should focus elsewhere.
“No good comes from innocent people being wrongly punished.” — You said it Rant. What you do get is an atmosphere of mistrust and insecurity. When you have a set of rules that allows one side to win over another, regardless of ability or veracity, the people stop trusting anything and will eventually turn on their oppressors. Zealotry is ugly — no matter which way you turn it. I for one do not wish for doping to be a part of cycling. Period. It is dangerous, unhealthy and the way it seems to be practiced, the only losers are the athletes themselves.
–
I would also like to point out that the “benefits” of doping leaves the cycling world open to mistrust and speculation. I do not think that the present situation means, “Cycling has reached the point where the fight against doping threatens to destroy not only its structure but its rich history” as Judge Hue states. Let us not forget that we DO NOT need to have a UCI or WADA to plant our butts on a saddle and ride down the road, we never did.
–
WADA and the UCI come into the picture only after people realized that there was corruption and cheating going on in the world of pro cycling. Lets face it folks — cheating is a part of any sport. Given the chance to improve him/her self, the athlete will take it. In their minds it is not a question of cheating but rather of gaining an edge. Is this right thinking? No it is not, but it is a way that some athletes do think. Sadly, combating this aspect of the mess that cycling is in, we need to look at why an elite racer feels so insecure as to cheat. Not merely accepting the “spin” about all athletes will cheat given the chance, before we can truly understand this. But handing the problem over to WADA or the UCI is akin to handing the keys to the chicken coop to the foxes.
–
Gorg herd responded to “Twos-day 1” — Mr Herd expressed his feeling clearly. I do hope he is wrong on one point. “good luck to this two riders who are just being stepped on for not being French.” I for one feel that the French have contributed greatly to the world of cycling. I do not think that it is a question of “not being French” — perhaps in some quarters such “jingoistic thinking” is de rigueur. Le Equip certainly seems to think so. The UCI and WADA use this every chance they get. France, the TdeF just happen to be the “battlefield” that this present mess came to light. I refuse to be jingoistic and place the blame of cycling at the foot of one nation or one event, when it is clearly not so. To assume that an entire nation is corrupt is unfair and biased, no matter how much we feel they may have hurt us or those we hold dear. The French are not the villains here. If things are allowed to continue as they are, they will wind up as much the victims as cycling it self. I am a die-hard TdeF fan, I admit it.
–
I completely agree with you Rant – “The system must be changed.” Larry writes — “Outside of the rarefied air here and at TBV, there’s little call for reform. Any “summit” convened by the ADAs will focus on how to catch more dopers, and fairness be damned. Our efforts should focus elsewhere.”
–
I think both of you are correct. My suggestion is that pressure be put on the “behind closed doors” policy that the present system needs to continue. While the blogs on TBV or here at the Rant line can be said to be “rarefied” I do not see it as ineffective. Thanks to both, you Rant and TBV all this garbage has now been put out there, in a fair and intelligent manner. I think that we have to have faith and trust in our given tools and fight this day to day. Perhaps, I am one of those who still doesn’t mind fighting windmills, especially when I know them to be dragons.
Reading Judge Hue’s article led me to conclude (1) WADA has created an unfair system and (2) Landis’s rights under the (unfair) code were violated. If there is any hope of reforming WADA, there must be a chance of making them accountable for unjust damage. Speaking of accountable, WADA’s character seems evident in their financial statements. Although a “not for profit”, WADA has recorded a continual string of income surpluses that have generated cash assets of nearly $30M in six years. 57 people were employed by WADA in 2006 — average salary is $107K and average travel and accommodation expense is $54K. Although the science and procedure behind today’s drug testing is (at best) fragile, WADA spends 49% more on salaries than they do on research grants. My belief is that the only way to reform WADA is by the rule of law imposing severe financial consequence for their unjust and unfairly operated system. I hope that Floyd Landis can get WADA into a US courtroom — what are his chances?
Morgan:
I too do not think that the troubles with respect to UCI/WADA etc. in general and the Landsi case in particular are a “French vs the US” issue. My own take, based on what was revealed at the hearing with some reading between the lines is this: The A sample testing was conducted in a sloppy manner, due to the lack of training, no manual, etc., and came up with a false positive. The results were leaked and became public knowledge, which put pressure on to back up the results. LNDD did not want to admit to making a mistake, WADA did not want to admit that one of their labs made mistakes, so everything after that was basically an attempt (so far successful) to CYA.
I wonder to what extent this attitude of WADA actually leads to an increase, not a decrease in doping. Do athletes perhaps think “if an innocent athlete can get banned, why not at least get the benefit of doping and win a few races before I get caught?”
Cynic that I am, I don’t see this getting fixed anytime soon. Especially with the elections coming up, it could be a risky move for a senator or representative to vote against funding of USADA, a vote which would almost certainly be characterized by an opponent as a vote favoring dopers. Perhaps a few might vote to cut funding somewhat on the basis of fiscal reasons, but as a practical matter, this is more than likely just one line item of an omnibus bill, with all the log rolling, pork barrel moves going on.
And suppose Congress did eliminate all USADA funding. Would WADA move to punish the US? Would US athletes get banned from international competition with the threat that this would continue until we got back on board?
Now, I don’t want to discourage anyone from writing his or her congressman/senator – I may even do so myself. But I think that ultimately, an reform has to come from inside, forced if you will by the athletes thru a strong union. UCI, WADA, and even ASO are using riders as pawns in there (the alphabets) games. The riders need to stand up for themselves.
hey rant, i would point out at this time that your sample letter is a little out of date. i personally wouldn’t just sign my name and send it to my congressman anyway – in fact, his website expressly says not to send form letters. but, others might be able to make use of it – and it’s a great idea to help us in the motivated, but somewhat verbally impaired audience.
Snake,
Thanks for reminding me. That letter certainly does need some updating. I’ll be getting to that in the near future.
William,
Your eloquent phrasing of CYA fits perfectly to the situation. All involved, UCI, WADA and LNDD reacted to cover themselves. Will this manipulative and abfuscative situation change — I agree with you — no it will not — UNLESS — more and more of such behavior is open to public scrutiny. I have no wish to shoot down a positive suggestion coming from Rant — but as you — I do not think this “issue” is going to make the top ten list in American politics. Besides that — I believe that this is not merely an American problem, if you follow me. As you point out — so what if the USADA funds are cut off — this only makes us as a nation ineligible to compete on the world stage.
–
You may think this is a vague idea or a hope, but I think that if we are to “reach out” to anybody, it should be the racers themselves. It is within the racers power to have all hearings concerning a “doping” accusation to be held in the “public eye.” I’ve said this before — we can be very grateful to Floyd Landis for going public. He did great service to the world of cycling, by doing so. Although the long months of waiting was terrible on every one and many things were said “about every body” — in the end — it was the only time, we actually saw how the Cycling governing bodies function in action. With the careful deconstruction of most aspects of the Landis case — we the public have finally had hard evidence as to how the bastids comport themselves.
–
Yeah, I think also that change will be forced by the riders — but let us not forget that most pros have a competitive streak a mile wide — the idea of “unionizing” is the sensible solution, the pro rider looks at another rider but unconsciously sees him/her as competition, not as a “fellow” racer who should be supported — after all — it is not a large jump to assume that the first thought will be — “had he? or hadn’t he?”
–
If you reread some of the quoted commentary of racers about one another — They run the course from idealism to adding wood to the fire to nailing the accused. I do not think that many pro racers have a good “overview” of their own situation — at least not yet. BUT if we can encourage them to make EVERY HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING — we will certainly have hard facts to work with. When we have more then one case like FL recorded publicly — we have more then our personal view points to fight with. At this point there will come a time when taking the “trial” to a legitimate court have the necessary weight and impact. Not to mention that The power that be really do need to realize they are being watched by a world wide public — believe me — that will put the fear of god into them.
–
Steve Balow — I think you are asking too much of Landis — unless he makes a decision to make his life’s work fighting USADA and WADA — never plants his butt on bike again and manically just keeps this thing going — being that WADA and USADA will surely whip out the “fact” that they have prosecuted X amount of racers and have never lost a case. We need more cases out in the “public domain” — that have been gone over by knowledgeable people as in the Landis case to make such an attempt worth. — not to mention the money it will cost. Maybe Floyd will think about it and decide this is what he wants to do — and gets his own law degree in the process, freeing himself from thinking that “all he can do is race.” But I wouldn’t wish that on him.
–
As I watched the Worlds — I did notice something very interesting. Racers are always aware of being in public — so when Bettini off handed McQuaid, as did many of the other pro racers — we can be sure that the UCI will not find the riders so easily malleable. Especially since they are now using their “own” chosen lawyers to represent them — you may not believe this — but “teams and sponsors” would supply lawyers for riders — so while I can only ask that you draw your own conclusions — is there a “conflict of interest” when the lawyer representing a single team member is in reality representing the interest of the “teams and sponsors?”
–
The smartest way is to contact EVERY Pro-Racer through his “fan club” — one will have to be careful since many such “fan clubs” are handled by the Teams and the Sponsors — but if we can reach out to some individuals, I am certain that we will eventually reach the racer himself. At the same time, we are enlarging the worldwide support of these guys. All we ask is that no doping charges be allowed to go down behind closed doors, away from the Public Eye — worldwide.
Morgan, if you’re counting on more public ADA hearings to focus attention on the problems in the WADA system – a quick note. According to Judge Hue at TBV, the USADA system is unique in permitting accused athletes a public hearing. Apparently, you’re not going to see public hearings in any other country.
Morgan:
I know what you are saying about how one rider will regard another as a competitor, not an ally. We see some of this when one rider makes allegations about another. However, consider the nature of the sport: cycle road racing is very unique if the fact that often competitors must of necessity cooperate one with another for a while so that both are in a better position to achieve their goals. So we already have some degree of cooperation.
The big pro teams sports here in the US all have unions, strong enough that there have been some strikes, including the recent NHL strike which totally wiped out a season. If and when riders realize the potentially precarious position they are in with regard to a possible false doping charge, as well a possibly various other ways that riders best interests are ignored, perhaps then they might see the benefit in banding together.
It would be quite desirable if more ADA proceedings were open to the public. But how much you want to be that one of the things that comes out of the doping summit is elimination of the open hearing provision? Or if not, remember that USADA wanted Landis’ ban to start from the date the decision was reached. To the best of my knowledge, previously bans dated from the time the athlete stopped competing (correct me if I am wrong). The panel sort of compromised by dating from the time Landis agreed to not race in France, adding in effect about half a year to the sentence. They will also probably slap a gag order on the rider from the start, so no wiki defense, no posting of documents, no slide shows and all the other things Landis did to publicize his case. Everything but the leaks, and possibly the ranting of officials will be shut down.
Larry — If Judge Hue is correct — then “getting information” is simply going to be a bit harder, but not impossible.
–
William — I do hope that after the “doping summit” they “clamp down” on open hearings, but as you may have read, Larry says — Judge Hue believes that our system back home is unique.
–
Have either of you considered that there may be a few very unhappy ex racers out there today? And I do not mean in the States. I mean over here in Europe. Starting with information gathering from these sources could give us — perhaps not “hard facts” like in the Landis case — but more opportunities to show how the UCI and WADA run rampant in our sport.
–
There is one thing that we do have to understand and respect — the average European does not think like we do in the US. In fact — we tend to scare them with our way of “not respecting” authority or traditions. Such differences can be over come if handled correctly.
–
For Bettini to “fight” his ban and to refuse to sign that abomination of a contract that the UCI is so hot to get everyone to sign was a very big thing, believe me. McQuaid just couldn’t believe that Bettini had the cajones.
–
For Valverde to get backing from the CAS was a truly great shock and it was only due to an accident. Right after the “decision” was revealed — it was “mentioned in the sporting pages that only 1 judge was there to make the decision. A small crack — but I do believe that there may just be people who feel that the system is rotten and try to do the right thing. It will be interesting to see what happens to the judge in the next 12 months.
–
Guys — I am not “stuck” on my own suggestion about what to do — I am not a lawyer and I make no claims to know the “law” like some of you. BUT being that I live on this side of the ocean — I can tell you that many people feel very strongly about fair play and equal justice — not American, not European — but the basic idea of being treated fairly — I do not think that Europe has “looked” at the WADA rules or the UCI rules as we have done in the last year. To Europeans — WADA is an American thing — so WADA keeps its profile low and uses the UCI to do its dirty work.
–
I think that Europeans believe that the UCI — is the legitimate “representative” of the pro rider or cyclist — the European fan is nuts about cycling and all this shit going down in the last few years, has basically split the fan group up into two factions. One is the faction that has gotten really angry and rejects cycling for its corruptness — or the more sophisticated who understand that there is more to this matter then meets the eye.
–
The only thing that is going to hinder us is George Bush — that is if you count a few hundred thousand people who come out in protest when he drops in to visit. Like the third rate sitcoms that the American market sells Europe — we become associated with George Bush or the latest sitcom that is playing. We need to get it out that the findings in the Landis case is NOT MERELY “AMERICAN” — that a screwed test is a screwed test.
–
Forgive me for perhaps not being more clear at the moment — I am surviving what around here is called the “grippe” influenza — my temperature is cruising at around 104-5° and I worry that I may not be thinking clearly as I normally would. But since I do feel that what we are working towards has great merit I have to respond to you even with a head that is running on two cylinders.
Morgan:
Sorry to hear you are under the weather. Hope you are soon back on your feet.
Interesting the hear the European take is that WADA is an American thing. There has been some hints here and there that since WADA is based in Switzerland, perhaps their system is closer to the Swiss legal system than the US. But nobody knows what the Swiss system is like. Apparently, a lot of people don’t know what the WADA is like either (and many could probably care less). So it must be those guys across the pond who are messing things up. (Picture someone with arms crossed, index fingers pointing in opposite directions – the pond has 2 sides, of course). As you say, this mess is not just an American thing, or a Landis thing, it’s something that has impacted other riders in the past and can and will impact riders in the future until fixed.
As an aside, Marion Jones has fessed up to using steroids for the 2000 Olympics:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jUq0dOf2wXE-ySJWjMfV_pDxwfVQD8S2NLDG0
This will of course stir up another round of Floyd and Lance should just confess. 🙁
“Whether you believe Landis was guilty or innocent, this should be a concern: Eventually (if it hasn’t happened already), an innocent athlete will be punished for a crime he or she didn’t commit. That person will lose their good name, [sic] their reputation and their ability to earn a living for a minimum of two years (four, if certain people would have their way). ”
I have to take issue with some of the comments here – First of all, losing one’s good name and losing one’s reputation sound incredibly Victorian, and is negligible. Atheletes who put themselves willfully in a spotlight are fully aware that the press can be brutal – and those who are not aware of this are amazingly naive. I think the problem here is one of perception – atheletes and other ‘celebrities’ can use the media for their advantage, but become horrified when it works against them, and clearly, the public believes what it reads and sees – why else would you be writing, rant?
I take GREAT offense at the statement ‘that person will lose… their ability to earn a living for a minimum of two years’ – Are you saying the Floyd cannot get a job? Floyd can, right now, open a bike shop and make more than the majority of Americans do to take care of himself and his family. Statements like that are offensive to anyone who has ever been down-sized, thrown out of a job, made redundant or has had to leave a job because of health reasons and doesn’t have insurance or the ability to return to his or her job… If you have a specialsed profession, there is NOTHING that says you cannot take another job in a different field (perhaps less lucrative) in order to make money. There are too many people in this country who are TRULY without Social Security numbers who will love to ‘be able to work’ legally. Floyd CAN work – in fact, he’s written a best-selling book during his ‘unemployment’, so PLEASE corrent this statement.
Mr. Landis is a very, very fortunate fellow. He was allowed to question the veracity of a test (can an alleged drunk driver who knew she did not have alchol in her system accuse the police of rigging her test?) He has been able to live freely without the pressures of having to work to support a family for over a year (a luxury that would certainly help many people who have worked hard all their lives) and he’s been able to find a publisher for a book he’s written, which he didn’t even fully write himself (another mystery I’ll never understand…) Face facts – how much sympathy do you expect from most people in the world for Floyd’s case? I feel as though you’re trying to keep both ends of the candle lit – persuading us that the case was flawed (therefore, inadmissable based on science) and then, persuading us that it is a personal issue (Floyd’s supposed damaged life since.)
One doesn’t exclue the other, just as fighting for atheletes rights doesn’t exclude a total aversion to doping, but please leave some perspective here. Floyd is not facing death row.
cycleT,
Consider what athletes have to trade on, besides their athletic accomplishments. Mostly, it’s name recognition. No matter the sport, a star athlete has recognition at least by those who follow or participate in that activity. Take away that person’s reputation, tarnish their name, what do they have to trade on? Not much, especially if the sponsors, etc., no longer have any interest due to whatever scandal occurred.
…
Now, it’s true, someone who’s been suspended or banned from a sport can go to a Home Depot or McDonald’s or any of a host of other places and get a job. Rare is the person in that situation who can’t. But there’s a difference between someone whose job has been taken away by a quasi-judicial panel paid for with government money, and someone who has been downsized, “right sized,” etc. In the former situation, because it’s a quasi-judicial system the standard of justice needs to be set high. In the latter, justice unfortunately doesn’t apply. We’re talking about the cold-hearted decisions of cold-hearted businessmen (and a few businesswomen, too). There’s no law against being cold-hearted. And as long as they don’t outwardly discriminate (like pushing everyone over the age of 50 out the door, or only laying off people of one ethnic group, and so forth), then they can get away with it. Life is not fair. One can only hope that the saying “what goes around comes around” applies.
…
When an athlete gets banned, that person can’t practice his/her chosen profession. The only analogies that I can think of in the “real” world are things like lawyers being disbarred, doctors losing their licenses and such. In those cases, someone loses his/her ability to work in an entire field. But in those cases, the standards of proof required for such a thing to occur are pretty rigorous.
…
When I got laid off from my job in the early 90s, I could still work in my chosen profession (except for the fact that jobs were few and far between at the time and that necessitated a “career adjustment”). It took me several years to get back on my feet again, and I doubt that I’m unique in that regard. I carry that experience with me, and I know what people in that situation go through: no job, no insurance, lots of bills. Been there, didn’t like it. And I have a lot of empathy for those who are in similar circumstances. As someone who’s lived through being “downsized,” if I read the statement you quoted and it had written by someone else, I would not have been offended. Different people, different perspectives, I suppose.
…
Floyd Landis is both fortunate and unfortunate. Fortunate to have the means to pay his bills in the last year, and to be able to fight his case. Unfortunate, because no matter what the ultimate outcome is, he’s lost a great deal that should have been his. And he’s come close to bankrupting himself in order to clear his name.
…
Sure, he could start a bike shop (perhaps he will, even). But let me tell you, I worked in a bike shop for several years while I was “underemployed” to help make ends meet. Bike shops don’t all rake in huge piles of money. Some of them barely scrape by. While Floyd certainly has name recognition, and that might help spur some sales, it’s not necessarily a recipe for success. He’s probably got some opportunities that few of us might have. But at the same time, his opportunities are not necessarily as broad as we all might think.
…
My take on all this is that Landis is innocent. I doubt that’s a surprise to you. My take is also that he has paid a pretty high personal cost to fight this fight. But you’re right. He’s not facing death row, and he will find his way, no matter what he does in the future.
…
So, after this long-winded diatribe, here’s what I’ll say regarding the statement that offends you: Yes, Floyd can work. As you’ve pointed out, he wrote a book during the last year. Right now, however, he can’t work at his chosen profession. Whether it’s a famous athlete, or some anonymous person, whenever circumstances force a person to give up their chosen profession, that’s a shame.
…
By the way, about your example of the alleged drunk driver challenging her arrest. She would have an easier time winning in court than Floyd had at the arbitration hearings — and it would cost a whole lot less. In our justice system, she wouldn’t be prevented from challenging the case in court, and she would be allowed to challenge presumptions like, say, the police always do their job correctly. Whether she could afford to fight is another matter.
Cycle T,
Floyd IS facing death row……please go check a dictionary for the definition of livelihood. Floyd’s entire LIFE has been about cycling and it was the way he earned a living. Hence, if he is being hit with charges that would essentially bring a premature end to his livelihood it IS a death row decision.
We are talking about someone who has a high school education, no other marketable skills AND a loss of his reputation. He might as well be physically dead, because he is NEVER going to do much else except bag groceries.
I have alot of sympathy for Floyd Landis, the 3 lacrosse players “with priveleged backgrounds and upbringing” who were indicted on shaky evidence and now have to live with the stigma of the entire situation, and any other individual whose mercy is at the whim of people who obviously have huge insecurity problems and cannot see the point to understand that someone is innocent until proven guilty and that proof of guilt must be BEYOND reasonable doubt and based on ROCK SOLID evidence. I think when you have members of the legal profession as well as the scientific profession who are actually embarassed for their respective fields to pass down a decision like the Landis one, that speaks VOLUMES as to WHY we should have sympathy for Floyd Landis
Rant, thanks for your well-worded reply.
Bikescag, I think that we simply disagree. I think what you mean to say is that Floyd may be in a position in which his standard of living would change. Unless you know him personally, I can’t figure how you’d say that he has no marketable skills whatsoever – clearly he has been a very good spokesperson and fundraiser, so your statement as such is incorrect, and rather assumptive, and also not very flattering to Floyd.
There are many people who bag groceries and do support families and manage to be happy as well – you might want to think about that one – it’s not all about having the best house and best gear and being able to retire before you hit 40…
Also, I was not questioning the case or the legitimacy of the verdict, or the science – simply the issue of saying that Floyd cannot earn a living until his bad is up. That, as a factual statement is untrue. There are many cases of atheletes who have received a temporary ban who have worked their way through it, and came back strong at his or her game. I think you’re painting a doomsday scenario that assumes alot, and doesn’t give much credit to Floyd’s ability to cope. Is he that weak?