Trust
Something reader Luc said a couple of days in a comment on the post Marion Jones Admits To Doping resonates with me. Here’s what he said:
[H]ow do we trust an athlete that says he is clean?
With Jones’ admission in a New York courtroom last Friday, an athlete many suspected of doping, but who vehemently denied it for years, came clean. And for those who believed her, or wanted to believe her, the inevitable question is: How could we trust or believe in someone like that? How, indeed.
Just as, when someone in a position of authority is proven to have abused that authority, and in doing so harmed others, the question is much the same. Are we even right to trust anyone we don’t personally know? Because, it seems to me, trust is something that’s earned. So, while I can admire a talented athlete, or a politician who stands on his principles, I’m not sure I would say that I actually trust either one.
I might believe in both, and believe that they are good, honest, hard-working individuals. But trust, that’s another matter. Call it my Missouri heritage, but when someone proves to me that they’re trustworthy, then I’ll trust them.
Now, there’s a separate question of whether or not we should give people the benefit of the doubt — whether we should presume people innocent or presume them guilty. In my worldview, I give people the benefit of the doubt, with a few notable exceptions. Such as certain political figures, or people in positions of authority, who — by their actions — have already proven that they are not worthy of any trust or the benefit of any doubt. Some people are clearly bad people.
The problem with the Jones case, like others who have loudly proclaimed innocence only to sheepishly (or even contritely) admit guilt later on, is that so many others have gone down this road. So, when a truly innocent person comes along, he or she will never be believed, no matter how loudly the person speaks or how hard the person fights. All because others abuse our willingness to give people the presumption of innocence.
While the presumption of innocence is good, and everyone should be entitled to due process under the law (or under the rules of arbitration for doping offenses), I also believe in personal responsibility. If a person has truly been caught with his or her hand in the cookie jar, the best thing to do is admit it, take whatever punishment is coming and move forward. I can forgive someone who’s made a mistake and been big enough to admit the mistake. I’m not sure what to do about someone who’s spent years denying the mistake, and then when facing legal complications, suddenly decides to come clean.
That’s complicated. I’d want to hear more from the person than, “I’m sorry I let you down.” I’d like to understand — from his or her perspective — why it was necessary to lie for years before coming clean. Without that, I’m not sure if the person has learned a lesson or will strive to do better in the future. Or even if that person will take his or her experience and use it as a way to encourage others not to follow in the wrong footsteps.
Patience
We all want to believe we can trust those in positions of authority. It’s our hope that those who make the rules will actually follow their own rules. That seems like a reasonable expectation, doesn’t it? One of the problems that the Floyd Landis case illustrated painfully well is that there are certain individuals who make the rules, but feel those rules don’t apply to themselves. Or that the rules can be applied strictly to one group of people (the athletes), while others (the labs, for example) are not disciplined so strictly when rules are broken.
Pat McQuaid may have been technically correct when he announced immediately after the arbitration panel’s decision in the Floyd Landis vs. USADA case was released that the UCI now considers Oscar Pereiro the winner of the 2006 Tour de France. At the same time, under the UCI’s rules, Landis has 30 days to file his appeal. Common sense, then, would suggest that before officially awarding the Maillot Jaune to Pereiro (and handing him a very fat winner’s check), the UCI and the Tour organization should wait until those 30 days have passed. If Landis chooses not to appeal, by all means, give Pereiro the jersey and the money.
But if he does decide to appeal, it’s best to hold everything in escrow until the case is decided by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. It’s not like poor Oscar is going to starve in the meantime. However, it would save a lot of difficulty down the road, regarding who pays what money to whom if Landis were to win his appeal.
Of course, neither McQuaid not Christian Prudhomme really give a rat’s ass about Landis or what the right thing to do in this situation is. A cynic might say that by officially awarding the yellow jersey to Pereiro on the 15th (five days before Landis must make up his mind about an appeal), the UCI and the Tour organization are making sure that Landis gets screwed yet again.
How so? Well, let’s suppose Floyd appeals. And let’s suppose he wins. Will he get the money rightfully due him? It’s easy to envision a situation where the ASO would say, “Look, we already paid Pereiro. Go collect your money from him. We haven’t got it.” And it’s pretty easy to picture McQuaid and the UCI backing the them up.
So even if Landis wins, he loses. He’d have to pay his lawyers even more to sue the bastards to receive what he would be due. Of course, if Landis loses his appeal, he’s out the money he will pay his lawyers for that, too.
So, no matter what Floyd Landis does, he’s very likely screwed. And at least part of it could be prevented if McQuaid, Prudhomme and Pereiro had a bit more patience. I guess the moral of this story is that there are certain people who we can “trust,” when given the opportunity, will screw others over just to be vindictive.
” – How do we trust and athlete that says he is clean? – Luc and “The Man from Missouri” put forth — actually a most pertinent question to be asking ourselves at this very moment.
–
“Last week, the Washington State Supreme Court struck down a 1999 law that banned political candidates from lying about their opponents. In the decision, the majority said the law was an affront to free speech.” When I ran across this item in NPR my first thought was “have the lunatics in the asylum taken over?”
–
I believe Rant has clearly stated the problem an individual must face, daily — “How do I trust?” a very “human” question. I believe Rants’ reasoning is flawless in his presentation. Trust is something that one “earns,” through their actions.
–
The heavier question that must logically follow — Do I give people the benefit of the doubt? Would seem much easier to answer but appears more complicated then it is. As Rants’ piece points out – it is — “whether we should presume people innocent or presume them guilty.” To reach this conclusion — ONE HAS TO SPEND TIME “contemplating it.” No one can GIVE me the “right answer” — I have to invest my time and think – to make this decision.
–
This makes it an adult question. It is each individuals’ – responsibility to think through how he wishes to view the world and himself.
–
I choose to act in this world with the premises that people deserve the benefit of doubt or to put it another way — they are innocent until proven guilty. So what “price” am I paying for this belief? The price to me is simply that I may wind up having “egg” all over my face for following such a choice – when my taking such stance is proven wrong by the actions of an accused person or group.
–
I may become — angry, disappointed, shaken to my core, disenchanted – when someone I felt was telling the truth, is revealed to have been lying. But then, should my trust in the concept of “innocent till proven guilty” flip to “guilty till proven innocent” – I believe it should not. The concept of “innocent till proven guilty” is much too valuable to give up on because an individual or group fails to live up to it.
–
An adult person MUST spend time in understanding such a concept. They must take the time to come to their “own” understanding. That is why — no one else or group or philosophy can “give” the right answer to them. It is a simple question that turns out to be the glue that makes it possible for people to coexist together — it is the glue that holds a civilization together.
–
To find myself with “egg all over” is not so great a price to pay for championing the concept of “innocent till proven guilty” — it is greater than I am or one person or group being found to be lying — I have never felt that I am omniscient — that I alone can hold and “know truth” as my personal concept — I cannot “own it,” NEITHER CAN ANYONE ELSE. The truth is revealed by what is done — and actions are the test whereby truth is discovered.
–
Yes — I may find myself looking foolish in the eyes of my fellow man — I may be accused of being an “idealist” — a simpleton, an idiot, of being on the “wrong side” — but that is the price I am willing to pay. I will not hold my “thinking” hostage to what others may think or feel about me personally. I am a free man and I am an adult — I am not looking to prove to anyone that I am in the sole possession of the “right” answer.
–
What I do want is that we live in a world where the smallest can have a voice — popular or not. So this is not a question of my own personal public image — it is a question of – will I willingly snuff out a voice that is smaller then mine because the majority finds it convenient to ignore the small voice because it disagrees with the majoritys’ wishes?
–
And Larry — I do always listen and I do value your opinions — otherwise you would not hear a “peep” out of me.
Having spent a lot of my yout hanging out with people of dubious societal advantage (I happily include myself in that description; had they been a bit worse I likely have become a career criminal), I would have to say that even knowing someone well can’t lead to trust. Without going into gory details, my friends were involved in an incident that I would have loved to be part of, but due to my position they figured it would be better if I didn’t know about it. Naturally I talked extensively about the incident (critiquing, mostly) and never thought anything about their possible involvement (I ‘trusted’ that they would have involved me). It was years later that I found out that they were behind the incident and then I became conflicted. I understood their point in providing me with deniability, even could appreciate it from time to time, yet still felt betrayed that I hadn’t been involved and more than a little stupid for not picking up on the now obvious clues. You can easily argue that since we were all thieves and there is not supposed to be honor amongst thieves that there is no place for trust. However, I had felt, within our context, that we could trust one another (we certainly did when we executed our various heists).
Now lets assume that someone (Jones, perhaps) is told by someone they trust (a coach, perhaps) that while this clear liquid, a derivative of flax seed oil, was performance enhancing, it was not illegal or even unethical (caffeine, for instance, is not illegal or unethical and is indeed performance enhancing), and upon using it you find your performance is indeed enhanced (placebo effect be damned, if it works it works), why wouldn’t you continue to use it all the while adamantly (and with a free conscience) announce to the world that you are a clean competitor? Perhaps you get suspicious when your coach is arrested for involvement in illegal performance enhancing drugs, but you still have trust (though perhaps it starts to wear thin). Only when confronted with unassailable evidence might you even consider shifting your world view as that means admitting you were a moron for having trusted that individual in the first place. Most people, I think, would consider that within the context of a coach/athlete relationship that trust is implicit and required. A violation here is much worse than a dispute amongst thieves, right?
One can never trust anyone except as a leap of faith. You can look at physical evidence, but evidence can be (sometimes trivially) tampered with and if you lack trust in those that collect and process the evidence it is easy to cry foul. Personal testimony immediately brings us back to trust and leaving aside the pitifully poor ability for humans to honestly report what they believe they observed, it is trivial to abuse trust when someone is testifying on your case. Even if I trust that you are telling the truth as you believe it, you can still be dead wrong, so my trust may be misplaced. Either you have faith in something and therefore trust it, or you don’t and don’t. For more rambling on faith see http://sol-system.com/koxenrider/bok/faith.html
Mitakeet – you are a cynical being and you know it. Tossing such trash in this pond will not contaminate it. Playing with semantics is not the same as having insight. If your life has thought you that faith and trust are mere words to bandy about – then look at it again from a different view point – your conclusions come from chasing your own need to accept the interpretations you wish others to accept about you. That is my reaction to your input. I am certain the others may respond differently.
You presume that Landis has not already decided not to appeal the decision and notified the UCI clearing the way for OP’s award?
Philip,
My going assumption, based on information from several sources, is that Landis has not made up his mind at this point. The decision, ultimately, may depend on whether or not he can find a way to pay for the appeal, should he choose to do so. If he’d already decided not to appeal, that word would have filtered out. If not in a press release, then through other channels.
Morgan, what the ….? I thought Mitakeet wrote a damn good post! When he says that there’s a connection between trust and faith, I think he’s agreeing with your statement that you choose to give people the benefit of the doubt, and risk the egg on the face. I also like Mitakeet’s comparing the trust we have in figures like FL, to the trust an athlete has in her coach. So maybe Marion Jones had HER trust violated, too! Good point.
…
Maybe it’s cynical on a certain level to say that trust requires a leap of faith, even when it comes to people we know well. We can debate this. But I don’t know FL, and if we’re discussing whether I should trust FL, it seems to me that a leap of faith IS involved — and probably, that FL deserves that leap of faith.
Larry – on this point I cannot agree with you. Mitakeet creates a reality which he leaves vague and then jumps to discussing trust as “a leap of faith”. Relying on the term “trust is a leap in faith” does not discuss this topic. His logic is circular and serves only to justify his view. His observations are based in negativity – which he then tries to spin into a form of his own philosophy – which I cannot agree with.
–
My response to Mitakeet in no way insinuates that I do not have “faith/trust” in Floyd or the Landis case itself. Or that a “leap of faith” is necessary to look at Floyds’ innocence. I believe there are much more concrete and less nebulous ways of reaching this same conclusion. All one is required to do is look at the trial itself.
–
When asking oneself about the matter of “trust” – this is a unique and individual question. Mitakeet presents a scenario where he admits to living a life on the outside. Then proceeds to express his doubt about the loyalty of his “friends” – this doubt he does not resolve and comes to no insight – but then proceeds to offer up his “testimony” – to discuss faith as if he has come to certain conclusions. I don’t buy into this.
We have several scenarios that have taken place with regards to accused athletes denying guilt. At one end, you have the athlete who, when the A sample comes back positive, denies guilty until the B sample also comes back positive, at which point the athlete fesses up, and takes his medicine. I can understand this, the athlete is in effect taking a roll of the dice that the B sample will either come up negative, or get messed up some way and get tossed out. You could always just make “no comment” statements, but these would be interpreted by many as a guilty admission, so way not deny just in case the B test get you off? This is kind of in line with our 5th amendment rights (which I understand do not have any legal standing here). An other scenario is what Jones did: she did have one positive A test that I know of last year, which wasn’t confirmed by the B test, so technically she was “clear”. There had been a lot of suspicion, but no proof until now. While we can urge athletes to confess, I can also understand why they don’t unless they are actually caught in the cookie jar. I might point out that Armstrong is part way down this road: he has been accused while never having tested positive. Do we now assume he is guilty just because of what Jones did? Finally we have the Landis case: even though he has been convicted he still is denying his guilt. Is he the liar of all liars or is he a victim of over-zealous prosecution? Or is the situation such that, while perhaps in fact he might have doped, the evidence is so tainted that he should be acquitted? And if that is the case, should he none the less confess?
–
As far as I know, there is no prohibition against double jeopardy in effect here. While OJ can, if he was so inclined. publish a book “I Actually Did It!” and nothing could be done, my guess is that if an athlete actually confessed to guilt after having been cleared, WADA or the sport’s federation would move to take action against the athlete. So it is in the athlete’s interest to deny guilt in these situations (Landaluze comes to mind here, cleared on the proverbial techniality).
As far as to who we personally trust: that has to be an individual decision. There are those who proclaim that, since a number of cyclists have been proven or confessed to doping, they all do it, and any rider must be assumed to be a doped, especially after a strong performance. This line of thinking is re-enforced by the idea (as yet to be proven in my mind) that it is impossible for a clean rider to win against dopers. So Landis, Armstrong, etc. all must be guilty. And now this group finds “confirmation” in the Jones case: if she lied all this time, Armstrong and Landis must also be liars. But we can’t judge one person by the actions of another. Not all prosecutors are over-zealous like Nifong in the Duke case, and not all white, rich prep-school athletes are rapists.
At this point in time, I still have a gut feeling that Landis is telling the truth, but it is in reality nothing more than that. I don’t know the man personally, only from what I have read about him, so I can’t make a statement like “I’ve know Floyd all my life and know he wouldn’t lie.” And we can be fooled by those we feel we know well. Remember Ken Lay, of Enron fame (or infame)? He grew up here in Columbia and his dad was a preacher at the church we attend now. Some of the people there remember Ken and believe that he got a raw deal. My wife and had to bite our tongues when this was discussed: the Teachers’ Retirement System in Texas, where we taught, had heavily invested in Enrom and took a mighty big hit, as did our resulting pensions. Most people in and from Texas have a much different opinion of Mr. Lay. So maybe the past is not a key to the future. But an athlete’s fate should not rest on our perception of innocence or our belief that all athletes are guilty, but rather from good evidence from reliable tests conducted to high standards.
William, agreed that we can cut a rider some slack for being less than truthful while waiting for the results of a B sample. In a better world, the A sample results would not be publicly announced unless and until they were confirmed by the B test.
…
Jones’ positive A test was for EPO, not testosterone. I don’t know if she’s admitted to using EPO, or if anyone thinks at this point that she used EPO. She never tested positive for the “clear”.
…
The WADA rules set up an 8 year statute of limitations, so I guess an athlete can wait 8 years and then ‘fess up. However, if after 8 years the athlete is found to have doped once, then if the athlete is caught again, he’s considered to be a two-time offender, even though he can’t be sanctioned for the first offense. See World Anti-Doping Code Article 17. And yes, if the athlete confessed before the 8 years are up, I think that the confession alone is enough to get the athlete sanctioned.
…
Agreed on your point regarding good evidence from reliable tests, but cops love confessions.
We’ve lost the thread here.
_
Let’s rehash:
_
WADA/UCI/ASO/USADA/LNDD claim that Floyd cheated. Are they honorable and trustworthy? That is not to say, “are they right?” Just in a general sense, do they seam to be above board?
_
Floyd claims he did not take testosterone. Does Floyd seem to be honorable and trustworthy? That’s not to say, “did he do it?” Can Floyd be a bit out of control – yes. Can Floyd be a little irritating – yes. But in a general sense, do you believe what you saw from him last summer was authentic?
_
Now the consensus seems to be that the lab could not prove Floyd cheated, and they obviously could not reliably repeat the results. That being the case, what does that say to the honor of the people accusing him?
_
I do not need to believe that Floyd is honest or honorable to believe that the authorities are not well intentioned (I suggest everyone rent “The Flying Scotsman,” the Graeme Obree story to see what motivates the cycling authorities). Based upon previous history, I just don’t trust the people who run cycling, the Olympics, or the ASO.
_
It would not surprise me if they just didn’t like Floyd, his backwards hat, and blatant Americanisms. When the original, now debunked, positive test came back they had no hesitations about piling on. They didn’t like him, couldn’t relate to him, and that was enough to believe that he was guilty. They certainly haven’t felt any need to have a reliable test.
Couldn’t have said it more clearly Michael.
–
Just looking at the actions of the principles involved – and questions arise.
–
I do not think that responding to the question of “trust” is in anyway questioning Floyd Landis – It is though a legitimate question that people may want to ask – since so much “questioning” is going on about the “truth” of what has happened in the Landis case.
–
To accept “guilt by association” as “proof” that Floyd or any body else is guilty is unfair. Guilt by association was being used actively when the USADA brought on someone like LeMond and Papp – neither individuals having any tangible connections to the Landis case is unfair. That no objections would be heard by the arbs, is unfair. That no cross examination of such witnesses was allowed is unfair – need I go on? What about seeing no significance that “original data” has been “lost”? That given the state of the so called evidence – it is impossible for Landis or anyone to retest – are any of these things fair?
–
Unsubstantiated accusations and innuendos being bandied about create an atmosphere of distrust – so asking oneself what one needs to understand to come to a state of trust is not such a bad idea.
Michael:
I am not ready to buy into the WADA et al is out to get Americans theory. After, they had no hesitation in barring Ulrich, Basso, etc. from last year’s Tour based solely on the preliminary information from the Operation Puerto affair. The the process, a number of what I assume were innocent riders were in effect barred from the Tour simply because their team dropped below the necessary number of riders. None of these were American. Then we have the Rasmussen affair from this year Tour. My opinion is that the powers that be have bought into the “they all do it” line of reasoning, so any hint of possible drug use is jumped on. But whatever the motives, is seems pretty clear that the powers that be are not totally above board; they are willing to not only bend but even break the “rules” to get a rider.
Question Rant –
“My going assumption, based on information from several sources, is that Landis has not made up his mind at this point. The decision, ultimately, may depend on whether or not he can find a way to pay for the appeal, should he choose to do so. If he’d already decided not to appeal, that word would have filtered out.”
Are you implying that your sources received leaked information and that you then pass this on?
Wasn’t this one of the biggest complaints of Landis supporters ever since the first positive test? If not, can you explain the difference between ‘filtering out’ and ‘leaked’?
cycleT, the obvious answer to your question is that FL is under no legal duty to keep confidential his plan to appeal (or not to appeal) the arbitration decison. Unless Rant’s information is coming from FL’s lawyers, which I doubt, then Rant’s sources (and Rant himself) are similarly under no duty of confidentiality. In contrast, the leaks of FL’s test results violated duties of confidentiality set forth in the WADA rules.
William
_
I didn’t say that they were out to get Americans. I also don’t believe in conspiracies. My contention was that his jingoistic, Americanism rubbed the authorities the wrong way. I think that the powers that be just didn’t like Floyd (or Lance, or Rassmussen, or Obree, etc.), and were all too willing to jump all over an inadequate test result.
_
They got it into their heads that Ulrich, Basso, Valverde, and all the other Puerto guys must be guilty. To hell with proving it. “We think it, therefore we will keep them from racing; the means are justified by the ends.”
_
They kept Tyler Hamilton from racing this year because of some innuendo about being tied to Puerto. Wasn’t he already punished for blood doping? So why was he barred from racing again? Are they claiming that he was blood doping again? No. They think he’s a cheat, and to hell with the rules. They don’t care about the two year suspension; he will never be allowed to earn money at his profession regardless of time served. “The means are justified by the ends.”
_
This attitude is wrong headed and ultimately merely breeds contempt among the fans for the sportsmen and the authorities. All of these men might have been guilty, but do you think that they should have been barred from racing based upon suspicions? A rhetorical question.
cycleT,
“Filtered out” could be either via press release, comments by Landis or someone on his team to various journalists, etc. Exactly how the announcement one way or the other will be made, I don’t know. No leaking like what happened with Floyd’s test results is involved. Because the information didn’t come directly from Landis, I qualify the statement by saying “according to my sources,” as I can’t state it as a concrete fact.
Floyd has decided to appeal.
here we go again
Will has it right, there is a statement up at
http://www.floydfairnessfund.org/
Some preliminary comments over at TbV too.
OK people. FL is going to appeal. Bravo, FL! Fight for what you think is right.
…
One thing that happens with an appeal, the focus shifts slightly. At the arbitration, the focus is: did FL dope? On appeal, the focus is: did the arbitrators make the right decision? The ADAs are a bit more on the defensive … and that’s especially the case, given the majority decision’s criticisms of LNDD.
…
I may be off-base, but I think the PR battle is almost as important to FL as the legal battle. I think the majority decision in the arbitration was based in part on the arbitrator’s cynical take that FL had already been convicted of doping in the press and in the public mind. They figured the prevailing sentiment was that all cyclists dope, all cyclists try to get away with doping, and when they’re caught, all cyclists deny that they doped. So they thought we’d see FL as just another typical punk doper cyclist. I also think that the majority figured, in a dispute between a cyclist and a laboratory, public opinion would side with the laboratory. Makes sense. When a lab technician gives us test results, we tend to believe the test results — we make major life decisions based on what happens after we pee into a cup or give blood to some guy in a white coat. So, the ADAs had on their side the prevailing negative attitude towards cycling, and our relatively high opinion of medical laboratories.
…
Has anything changed? Yes, I think so. One thing is, damn it, FL keeps fighting. Everyone likes a fighter. Me, I thought that FL was down for the count. He wasn’t. He keeps getting up and he keeps fighting. And at some point, you have to ask yourself, what makes him keep going when many of us thought he ought to quit? I may be crazy — maybe he looks to most people like just another athlete in severe denial. But I think he’s going to start looking to people like a guy with something to prove.
…
The other thing is, we have the majority opinion on our side. No, seriously. The majority opinion says that the lab screwed up. It’s important that we phrase this correctly, because the press keeps saying that LNDD was shown to have engaged in “sloppy” practice. That’s NOT how we ought to put it. “Sloppy” practice makes it sound like they didn’t sweep the floors after lunch.
…
No, what the lab did went beyond “sloppy”. Let’s understand this clearly, so that we can help FL in the PR battle to come. IMHO, the best way to explain the FL decision to an outsider is that the lab screwed up. Screwed up completely. They weren’t “sloppy”, like a guy who shows up to work unshaven and without a tie. They completely screwed up. They failed to do the job.
…
In an upcoming post (maybe tonight) I will outline what I think are the major talking points we should be stressing — on line, to our friends, on sports talk radio, wherever — to turn public opinion in our favor and help prepare the way for a successful appeal.
YES! – IT AIN’T OVER! Get ready to Rumble!
–
FLOYD LANDIS- the WINNER of STAGE 17 and THE WINNER OF THE 2006 Tde F
–
VIVA FLOYD! Allez! Allez!
–
I for one – am very glad he’s going to keep fighting!
–
Morgan Hunter – in Austria – by way of the USA.
Rant is no doubt writing an epic story based on today’s news..
Let me drop the appropriate quote for the day:
Abraham Lincoln:
“If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how – the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”
Some folks may not realize it, but its turning out the best way possible.
Had FL won the previous appeal, no doubt WADA would have appealed to CAS, and there is the slight possibility it could go the other way.
No, this is the only way it could unfold, as this is one of the best “untold” stories of our generation. There is no other option, he will win this time.
Larry:
My understanding, based on Judge Hue’s writings, of the CAS process is that it is in fact a new trial, not a review of the May hearing. If that is the case, I am not sure if Floyd could even present as evidence the panel’s finding re the quality of LNDD’s work, but would have to establish this anew, as it were. Of course it’s quite possible that the judges or whatever they are called, will be familiar with the case and might have some of these things in the back of their minds and thus could be influenced by that. But Landis could have an added advantage in this go round: he knows now how and why the first panel didn’t buy the evidence of his expert witnesses, and can prepare the new case accordingly.
William, yes, I’ve read elsewhere that the CAS process is in fact a new trial. But after some research, I think that what we’ve read is wrong. The rules regarding the CAS process are actually UCI rules (spend 10 minutes searching through the WADA documents and couldn’t find it!). The UCI rules give the CAS “full power to review the facts and the law.” In other words, the scope of what CAS does in any appeal is pretty much up to CAS. They can have a new trial, or just revisit some of the facts established in arbitration, or accept the facts found in arbitration and simply review the arbitrators’ interpretation of the law.
…
I’m not sure if FL or USADA can try to push CAS to broaden or narrow the scope of their review. Don’t know much about this appeal process, to be honest.
It was written, “Now the consensus seems to be that the lab could not prove Floyd cheated, and they obviously could not reliably repeat the results. That being the case, what does that say to the honor of the people accusing him?”
Not quite; they were able to quite repeatedly come up with numbers that looked quite similar on all the IRMS tests they ran. Whether they were correct is a different question. I don’t know that a careful person could conclude they were correct or incorrect based on the facts in evidence. The peak identification is questionable, but not provably wrong, and the mass-spectra that would rule in or rule out co-elution that would have affected the measured CIRs is either destroyed or has not been produced.
There is no shortage of factual, logical, or scientific flaws in the Majority Award.
As to the idea that the PR game is as important as the legal game, I used to believe that, and I think Team Landis believed that too, right up until The Call was made. At that point, I think rightly, it’s been strictly a legal game, because the PR was lost by self-inflicted catastrophe. It’s sad, but doesn’t really address the scientific or legal merits of the case. That it came to that was another “win” for USADA that gave them no moral high ground, but must have been gratifying in a small-minded way.
TBV
TBV –
…
Luckily for FL, the public has a short memory, and the Lemond call is forgotten.
…
My own personal view on the science is that the science used by the majority of the arbitrators is not clearly wrong. Retention times, relative retention times, “eyeballing”, flash movies from GC/MS manufacturers, who the heck knows? Maybe you can reasonably conclude from the mess LNDD made of this case that the data shown on all the graphs you’ve so carefully examined on your site bear no relationship whatsoever to the chemistry of FL’s samples. But I don’t know what to do with the data that came out of the LNDD’s testing of FL’s samples from stages other than stage 17 (putting aside the procedural issue of whether USADA had a right to request those tests). Did LNDD screw up all of those tests?
…
I think I understand your reference to peak analysis. But if you wouldn’t mind, would you please explain what is “the mass-spectra that would rule in or rule out co-elution that would have affected the measured CIRs”. What is that, and why is it important?
…
Putting the science to one side, IMHO the arbs made clear errors in how they dealt with the ISL violations. I don’t see how (or for that matter, WHERE) USADA met its burden that these violations did not cause the adverse finding. IMHO I think the arbs exceeded their authority as fact finders by inventing reasons why the ISL violations did not cause the adverse finding. I think this would make an interesting argument in a federal court review of the arbitration: that the arbs effectively acted as investigators, thus exceeding (and perhaps even abusing) their authority.
…
Sorry TBV, not going to get you an analysis of these issues for your site this week.
{ 1 trackback }