It aint over `til it’s over
– Lenny Kravitz
And so, we begin again. This afternoon, Floyd Landis issued a statement on the Floyd Fairness Fund website, as well as a letter to donors, saying that he will appeal last month’s 2-1 decision by an arbitration panel that found him guilty of doping during the 2006 Tour de France.
Floyd Landis is a fighter, and not someone to shy away from battle. Most people watching the 2006 Tour wrote Landis off after he bonked during Stage 16. But he proved them wrong by coming back and, with some brilliant tactics, pulled out a fantastic ride — one of the greatest rides of recent Tour history — to set up his victory. If nothing else showed that Floyd Landis is a fighter, those two rides back to back illustrate the man’s character. He’s not one to ever give up.
Landis is fighting not only to clear his name, but for a greater principle: That the system as it is currently formulated must be overhauled in order to protect the rights of all those yet to come.
As Bonnie Ford reports on ESPN.com:
“I think it has been the result of a relatively careful process of looking at alternatives and what Floyd wants to do,” Suh told The Associated Press. “It’s balancing his desire to try to vindicate himself against the cost and emotional toll it’s taken.
“But ultimately, Floyd is a fighter, and he just felt the [arbitration] decision was not an accurate reflection of what facts were or what law is. That’s what ultimately motivated him.”
Of course, the lawyers for USADA have a different take on things, as Matthew Barnett told ESPN:
Barnett said he “didn’t see the merit” in an appeal. “The evidence clearly shows” that Landis doped, he said.
“From a resource standpoint, this is disappointing,” Barnett said, referring to the time and effort it will take to re-try the case. “But the fact that he has the right to waste everyone’s time and resources shows how fair the system is.”
Well, Mr. Barnett, nice that you think the evidence clearly shows that. But having read the arbitrator’s decision, with all due respect, I disagree. The majority had to do some major mental gymnastics to come up with their ruling, and in doing so, they took the lab at the heart of the case to task for their processes and procedures. Telling a lab, in essence, “screw up like that again, and we’ll toss the case” is hardly a ringing endorsement of LNDD — or of the case against Landis.
Odd that a man who stands to gain much from the appeal (at least in terms of legal fees, if not notoriety) would call Landis’ appeal a waste of resources. Barnett’s wallet is going to get a little fatter because of this in all likelihood.
Landis has a right to appeal, and that is evidence of at least a certain limited amount of fairness to the system. But let’s not kid ourselves here, Mr. Barnett. As we’ve seen from the first go-round, the way WADA set up the ground rules for arbitration clearly stacks things in favor of the anti-doping agencies. Fair, the system aint.
As Landis said in his announcement:
“Knowing that the accusations against me are simply wrong, and having risked all my energy and resources – including those of my family, friends and supporters – to show clearly that I won the 2006 Tour de France fair and square, I will continue to fight for what I know is right. Doping in sport seems to continue to get worse under the current anti-doping system, and this is only a part of the huge amount of proof that the WADA/USADA system needs a total overhaul. I will continue to work to clear my name and fight for change in the name of fairness and justice. No matter the final outcome of my case, there must be change in the current system if athletes can ever hope to compete on a level playing field and return to the joy and inspiration that sport can bring all of us.”
“My hope is that the CAS panel will review my case on the basis of the facts and the science, and to approach my appeal from the principle that the anti-doping authorities must uphold the highest levels of appropriate process, technical skill, science and professional standards to pronounce judgment on matters that hold an athlete’s career, accomplishments and livelihood in the balance.”
As Bonnie Ford also reports:
Landis said he has “a little bit of hope” that the CAS, headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, will overturn the ruling the rider described as “contradictory and nonsensical.”
“We were all obviously very disappointed,” Landis said of his friends, family and legal team, who helped raise the approximately $2 million it took to defend him before the three-man panel who heard his case in May. “But there wasn’t anyone who thought we should just give up.”
With this appeal, the case starts anew. Unlike the judicial system, where appeals are based on the previous decision and the evidence presented during trial, each side will be able to produce all new evidence, witnesses, and arguments — if they see fit to do so. The initial report on USADA’s intentions are that they believe their case was very strong and will not change it much. We’ll see if that is true.
Both sides have had the opportunity to learn from what the arbitrators accepted and rejected. At the very least, I expect USADA won’t put on witnesses like Greg LeMond and Joe Papp, both of whose testimony was ignored by the arbitrators. And I suspect Team Landis has learned a thing or two about how to present their case, as well.
Also, unlike the first hearing, the appeal to the CAS will not be open to the public. So much or all of what goes on during this process will happen quietly, behind closed doors. That gives me pause. Sunshine is always the best disinfectant when it comes to systems in need of an overhaul. Continual exposure to daylight would be best, but in this case it won’t happen.
In order to clear his name, Landis will fight on. And in doing so, he embraces the role of a champion. In this case, a champion for change. Regardless of how the CAS rules on Landis’ case, he continues to fight for what he believes is right — changing the system so that it can be both more effective in the fight against doping, while ensuring a truly fair process to those who are accused by the system. Landis, as I observed a couple of days ago, may turn out to be the Curt Flood of cycling. Or he may even win at the CAS and — even if only partially — clear his name.
Or to put it in another way, today begins the 22nd stage of the 2006 Tour de France. The outcome of this stage may well determine who is the rightful winner of the race. And while Oscar Pereiro may get his little ceremony next week to pass the yellow jersey to the UCI’s and ASO’s pretender to the throne, he may someday have to give it back. But if he does, don’t count on any ceremonies. As Landis also told Bonnie Ford:
Landis said he finds it “absurd” that Tour officials would make that gesture before he had exhausted all his legal options, but added he won’t ask for the jersey back if he wins in court.
“I won’t be taking part in any more ceremonies like that,” he said. “This just shows what I’ve said all along — they don’t care about the facts. If the French lab [that processed his test samples] says something, they believe it.”
I had a feeling that Landis would appeal. But truth be told, I expected the announcement to happen on the 19th or 20th.* I don’t know if Oscar’s little party in Madrid next Monday had anything to do with the timing, but perhaps Pereiro and company should postpone their soiree until after the CAS appeal. It would be the right thing to do. Not that anyone involved cares.
And so, we begin again …
*Note: Several news organizations have been reporting that Landis had only one more day to file his appeal. That is incorrect. According to the UCI’s rules, he had 30 days, which would have allowed him to file his appeal next week had he wanted to.
–“each side will be able to produce all new evidence, witnesses, and arguments”
.
With the LNDD that means that they can create new documents that shore up their arguments……?
.
Didn’t stop them before.
.
Do you think there will be the legal intercourse of bringing up testimony from the first hearing….are you lying now or were you lying then….?
.
One CAS hearing allowed third parties to attend. See Chryste Gaines….
http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/CAS%20Decision_Chryste Gaines_Dec 2005[1].pdf
.
I want the TBV crew to attend.
.
Mc,
I’d certainly be happy to attend, if the hearings were open to the media (bloggers included). I think reporting the events first-hand would help people learn about and understand the process better.
I can imagine a conversation between Floyd and his Mom ” Floyd why are you doing this, it’s so costly and you’ve been through so much stress. I’ll support you but God Almighty…….”. “Because Mom i didn’t cheat, I didn’t cheat!!!!”.
Right on Floyd. I’m in for the ride. My wife said it best ” god even less conversation”.
Since the “majority” seems to have no problem with “interpreting” results as they wish – I for one would want the CAS hearing public.
–
The oft-repeated statement that the “closed doors policy” is due to a wish to protect the privacy and is in the interest of the rider — is blatant balderdash! For those who may be too young to know the meaning of “balderdash” — it is a polite way of saying “bulls§*%!”
–
I expect that there will be much hyperbole coming our way, such as that what Landis is doing is going to cause all the “good work” of WADA, et al to be in jeopardy — “Man, I sure hope so!”
–
I may be wrong on this reference — but I do believe it came from Goebbels, Hitlers’ propaganda minister: “Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it to be the truth.” –We must never forget this! There has been a heck of a lot of lying going on and I for one want the media to be present! And not just the select few that like to trumpet the majorities’ views!
–
One more thing — we mustn’t forget that to now — Floyd has been fighting all his fights in majoritys’ territory — fighting under “rules” that the “majority” has created — these rules have been shown to be biased and slanted — with the sole intent that, when an athlete is “accused” he is actually guilty. Never mind that the evidence is spurious and indicates that the results must be called into contention.
–
I am willing to give the CAS the benefit of the doubt — but I am not willing to give them my wholehearted trust. SO STRIVE FOR THE CAS HEARING TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC!!! – Want to bet the “majority” will fight this tooth and nail?
–
And just incase anyone out there has questions about whos’ side I’m on — Floyd Landis is my hero — and I want Floyd to know — Mr Landis — you have cajones — I am proud to be one of your fan base — I am taking off my black armband of mourning — As long as you keep fighting — there is a chance that we will have “clean racing” in our near future! You give me and the rest of the people hope! — I hope my stance on the “Landis Matter” is clear enough!
Morgan, You’ve lost me on this one. Goebels?? Hitler?? Don’t think they merit a mention in this affair. I do think that WADA et al truly believe that FL doped and that is their motive in pursuing this case. They believe in the science that caught him…again that is why they have pursued this case. The implication that there is a ‘conspiracy’ of lies to get FL doesn’t wash with me. The ‘conspiracy’ if you want to call it that is they are all ‘conspiring’ to bring out the truth as they see it. But that is not the way FL sees it and neither do I.
What i would like to see while this appeal takes place is for FL to continue training. I would like to see him openly get tested to show he is clean (show the world how sqeaky clean he is). I would like to see him compete at non sanctioned events like the Leadville 100 until such time that this decision is overturned. And not be so politically correct when he is racing these events.
I am glad Floyd has decided to appeal. The majority ruling left more questions than it answered. I do agree that the CAS hearing needs to be exposed to light of day. There must be transparency in the entire system to ensure fairness and force changes when things are not fair.
Rant, to repeat what I wrote in a different topic area here, I don’t believe that a CAS proceeding is necessarily a “new trial”. The applicable rule, I believe, is UCI cycling regulation rule 289, which states that “the CAS shall have full power to review the facts and the law.” See http://www.uci.ch/modules/builtin/getobject.asp?menuid=&objtypecode=file&type=FILE&id=34171&. That COULD mean a new trial, but it doesn’t have to mean a new trial.
…
My guess is that this UCI rule is designed to give CAS the right to effectively hold a new trial on an appeal of an aberrant case — held, perhaps, under the auspices of the ADA of a small country determined to protect its athletes at all costs against any doping accusation. I doubt that CAS would be interested in re-hearing what was probably the most extensive and expensive ADA hearing in the history of sport.
…
Of course, if FL wants to start all over again from square one … stay tuned!
Luc – Geobles and Hitler have no importance what so ever! other then as the source of the statement.
–
What is important is the statement – “Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it to be the truth.” THIS IS IMPORTANT!
–
If every time that FL is mentioned in a media article and said article begins with – “”The disgraced Tour winner of 2006 – et al” – then you get a lie that is being repeated over and over – I would have thought this was obvious.
–
I have not mentioned anything about conspiracies – where did you get that?
Luc
_
I agree with you regarding the idea of there being a conspiracy. I also agree that WADA and ASO believes that he is guilty (I’m not sure about what USADA thinks).
_
However, I don’t think any of the bigheads at WADA know enough about the testing to intelligently speak about the efficacy of the testing that was performed and that’s what drives me crazy. The gross lack of professionalism and thoroughness from the ADAs side is disturbing. The idea that the process was good enough – good enough. . . that position is not good enough. When it was revealed that the test was not performed completely within the rules and standards then the ADA should have tossed the whole thing; mistakes mean that it was not good enough, regardless of the nature of the mistakes.
_
So when Barnett and the other USADA minions speak to the “facts,” they merely perpetuate my opinion of lawyers. “But the fact that he has the right to waste everyone’s time and resources shows how fair the system is.” Is he kidding? He can’t possibly believe that the first half of that sentence gives credence to the second half. I refuse to believe that he is that ignorant.
Rant:
Isn’t your opening quote you attribute to Lenny Kravitz actually a Yogiism? Deja vu all over again.
It is hard for us from a distance to actually determine if USADA is acting in good faith, or if they are simply trying to preserve their perfect batting average despite questions about the reliability of the lab’s work. My guess is that originally they proceeded on a good faith belief there was enough evidence to warrant going to trial, and find themselves more or less painted into a corner. They could in theory fold at this point, but that could set a precedent that all you have to do is go through the initial arbitration, and you can bluff them by proceeding to CAS. If they really thought they were wrong, but didn’t won’t to admit it, they could soft-pedal their case at CAS, going through the motions while allowing Landis to prevail. But I doubt that.
As to whether or not this will be a new trial or what: I guess that maybe it could be something in between. In the US judicial system, an appeal is a review of the original trial based either on the idea that some matter of law was incorrectly applied (evidence allowed in, for example, that should have been excluded), or due to new evidence not available to the defense at the time of the original trial is now available. This is not the case for CAS, an athlete apparently has an absolute right to appeal. Perhaps, however, either side will be allowed to read into evidence testimony from the original hearing, perhaps even the whoel transcript will be put into evidence.
While I can understand the idea of preserving an athlete’s right to privacy, IF HE WANTS IT, an athlete should have the right to request a public hearing, if he wants it. Of course, without a public hearing, the dancing-monkey theatrics used by USADA won’t have much use.
As to possible strategy for Landis, he has an even better chance to show the A test is flawed. I don’t know whether or not that should be sufficient; it was my understanding that a B test without a positive A could not be used against an athlete, but the panel did say there was precedent for it. In any case, Landis show also attempt to invalidate the B sample test(s). Whether his original arguements have merit, or whether he needs to revise them, he can use the panels findings to alter his approach to the B test(s) to counter the arguments the panel used to shoot him down.
Bringing up procedural issues I don’t think will, on their basis alone, get him off, but may be of use to either get access to additional documents from the lab (provided anything still exists unaltered) or in getting evidence excluded, like the additional B tests.
Assuming Landis were to win this round, it will be interesting to see what UCI/ASO does. Larry, from your legal knowledge, what legal basis would ASO have to tell Landis “Sorry about your money, we gave it to Oscar, get it from him”?
Rant,
What is the status of the French Federation wanting to take Floyd to trial also? – Is that to be another thing that the French will throw at Floyd if they don’t get the “judgment” that pleases them?
–
Since WADA and the UCI and other parties concerned have reacted by not reacting at all to the Landis trial findings concerning the LNDD labs performance and capabilities – is this not an issue that will have to be dealt with? Even the majority of arbs “agreed” that the lab had made mistakes – and such mistakes next time may cost them their case – I’ve heard no responses on correcting this problem, has anyone?
–
Or are the “powers that be” so dumb as to think that their method of “keeping things in the family” will just continue on?
Morgan:
Especially now that Landis is appealing, it is highly unlikely that UCI, WADA, or the lab itself will make any statements regarding changes in the lab’s methods. Making such a statement could be construed as an admission of guilt, maybe not to the extent of being usable in the CAS hearing, but certainly in the court of public opinion. I’d bet they now have a manual and have taken off the “Mickey Mouse Ears”, maybe even have updated their software and hardware, but if so we won’t hear about it; they don’t want a public admission that could be used against them. Whether or not WADA has privately chastised them, again WADA would not want that public knowledge for the same reason. Where is that leaker now?
It might be that down the road, after the Landis affair is over, WADA might update its standards, clearing up the issue of what standards are included or applicable, but that would probably be in some general way and not specifically directed at LNDD.
Morgan, I used the word ‘conspiracy’ not you. I put single ‘quotes’ around it for emphasis only not as something you wrote. There may be some individuals in WADA et al with nefarious intent but for the most part they are stating their truth/facts and the media is simply reporting. The media is reporting, “The digraced cyclist FL….” because it is a fact under the present circumstances and with the information that they have. As much as you and i and most everyone else blogging here doesn’t like it, it is still a fact. They are not perpetuating a lie, only their version of a truth that we disagree with.
William, in response to your question “sorry about the money”, LOL! That’s a complicated little question.
…
So I’ll answer a different question: suppose I owed $10 to the butcher, and by mistake I sent the $10 in cash to the baker. That action does not satisfy my debt to the butcher, and the butcher is not required to get the $10 from the baker. This rule should hold even if the mistake is not MY mistake — for example, if I sent the $10 in an envelope addressed to the butcher, and the post office mistakenly delivered the envelope to the baker.
…
I’m STILL LOL, not at you William, but at me! My question barely BEGINS to answer your question. The next fun question would be, can I get the $10 back from the baker? Or if I skip town, can the butcher get the $10 from the baker? We won’t even TRY to ask whether mistakenly paying the wrong food vendor can be compared to mistakenly paying the wrong Tour competitor. (After all, the identity of the winner of the Tour must be determined by the Tour organizers; the identity of my butcher does not need to be determined.)
…
Actually, William, I don’t think you asked a question at all. I think you wrote a law school exam!
William,
That quote is both a Yogi-ism (or ought to be) and a lyric from a Lenny Kravitz song.
Morgan,
No word yet on whether the AFLD is going to pursue their case against Landis. They may quietly let it drop, having gotten a judgment they can get behind from the USADA/AAA arbitration panel. Now, if Floyd wins at the CAS level, the case may come back to life. Especially if the ASO has anything to do with it, as they’d like cover for keeping Landis out and for not paying him what they would owe.
Luc (and Morgan),
It is a sad fact of life, indeed, that many stories contain the phrase “the disgraced cyclist … ” But it’s a reflection of how many people view the story and the upshot of the verdict that people will refer to him this way. If he’s vindicated at the CAS level, then the description may well change.
Larry,
If you’re ever in a position to be writing Law School (or Bar) exams, be sure to include William’s question. Extra credit for those who can correctly identify what the outcome will be in advance, too. 😉
Thanks for pointing out the UCI rules. I’ll be looking into both the UCI and WADA rules for arbitration in the near future. If I find anything different from what you’ve discovered, I’ll report that back.
Luc — “Floyd Landis, the now dethroned 2006 Tour de France champion,” – “Disgraced American rider Floyd Landis has confirmed he is lodging an appeal” – “American Floyd Landis was stripped of the title for doping.” – So the concept of “alleged” has no bearing here, is that what you are saying Luc?
–
You think perhaps that such defamatory presentations in the “media” have no effect on the “general” publics view of this situation? I think that everytime this occurs — the uninformed public hardens their “opinions” as to the matter of guilt or innocence of Floyd Landis. NOT TO MENTION THAT THIS CASE IS NOT CLOSED since the thirty day period that Floyd had was not expired to make a CAS appeal.
–
Every one of those “headlines” came from VeloNews or Eurosport — I saw no expose articles from either publication on the Landis trial — did you? Did either of these so-called news services that serve the cycling and sport world bother to report the trial fairly? NO! But now you say that “they are merely reporting” what is being told to them”¦REALLY? So you mean they aren’t “news services” but rather”¦what would you call that exactly?
–
William — I agree with what your are surmising about what WADA will or will not do and why they wouldn’t do anything other then this right at this moment.
My aim at bringing up this subject was not with the expectation that it be resolved — rather that the subject be not forgotten or ignored. As to what type of “band-aide” solution WADA will try — What about simply having all testing labs be ISO rated? We are told that they are up to “world standards” — I WANT THAT PROVEN! I don’t accept band-aide reworking of the muddle that WADA is getting away with now!
–
Please do not take my anger personally — it is not directed at any one of you. Somewhere I ran into something about how much or how little the media has effected this case – it stated that it was a rather low level – I hope to heck nobody on the Landis team actually believes that!
Larry:
I have written any number of exams, math mostly, some science now and then. But never a law exam! But here’s another variation: suppose someone wins the Tour, receives his winnings, and later on it is determined he dopes during the Tour, perhaps a confession a la Rijs.
Since part of the job of writing an exam is making up a key with the correct answers, he’s my non-legal opinion:
As you point out, mistakenly paying the wrong party, for whatever reason you make the mistake, does not excuse your debt to the correct party. You still have to pay him. But you now may have a course of action against the party mistakenly paid. Especially in this case (not Landis’), where the wrong party’s fraudulent action was responsible for the error.
But in Landis’ case, OP can be presumed to be acting in good faith in accepting the winnnings, FL has been DQed by a hearing and he (OP) is next in line. Not the same situation as sending the butcher’s $10 to the baker.
Regarding the possibility of the AFLD pursuing further action if Landis were to prevail in the appeal: is CAS the ultimate level of appeal, the Supreme Court of the sports world? If so, then I don’t see how AFLD could proceed. However, there is the practical question of enforcement, AFLD might just go ahead and dare CAS to do something, knowing that maybe it’s powers are limited. Could we possibly end up where who won the 2006 TdF depends on what country you’re in?
Rant – What’s the status of the science expert you were talking about in an earlier post. Will we see anything soon on his take of the majority opinion’s science?
Does anyone know how the CAS works in these cases — will it be three arbitrators, two chosen by USADA and one chosen by Landis, or some other configuration? Are the members there as likely to be as biased as Brunet and McLaren were to their system? Can they use the head of a WADA lab as an “independent” counselor? Just wondering if it’s the same procedures all over again, or if there will be differences that might allow for fairness.
Last night I was reminded of something I’d read earlier in this case that made good old fashioned common sense (apologies for mangling this): Floyd has to be really innocent, or really stupid, to keep going with his case. If he weren’t truly innocent, it would be such a waste of money and time to keep going in a flawed system; easier to wait out the ban and keep his previous earnings intact. I wonder why more people don’t see that? In this world of take-the-easy-way-out, it would be much easier for him to just lie low for a year and not offend anyone and then come back a la David Millar. Unless of course he’s innocent, and his reputation really matters to him, that he’s willing to pay such a high cost. There is a quote about lawyers having no better clients than those who fight on principle, presumably because they’ll keep fighting no matter the expense. Personally I think the world is so accustomed to those who sell out to truth, that they don’t know what to do when confronted with a man of principle, except deride him for making them look bad and feel convicted.
Rant — I raise your Lenny Kravitz to my Corey Hart. Never Surrender!
ilsanjo,
My “Guest Ranter” is still working on the article. He’s rather busy in his professional life, so it’s coming along slowly. I’ve seen a draft which is quite good, but I can’t say when he’ll be done.
William,
Regarding the AFLD’s case (which has been on hold since February). They started the case because, under French law, they could. It might get tossed by the CAS, should it be appealed to that authority, but my guess is that if they act against Landis, it will be in terms of banning him from racing in France for a certain period of time — and the CAS may not have jurisdiction to overrule their verdict. If they did such a thing and were successful, and if other countries followed suit in cases of suspected doping, then the WADA/national ADA system will break down completely. Not a pretty possibility, as in the wreckage there would be utter chaos.
Debby,
I’ve seen a couple of articles that say it will be a three-person panel. I can’t speak to how likely the members are to be biased, as I haven’t seen a list of who’s being considered and what their affiliations are. I’ve seen one article that speculates about one or two individuals, but I haven’t seen much else.
—
I’d say the theme song of the day is up for debate. We’ve got two pretty good choices here, and I’m sure there are others out there, lurking in the wings, waiting for a chance to vie for the vaunted position as the official song of the Free Floyd movement. Some guy named Springsteen might have a few contenders in his catalogue, too. 😉
Judge Hue now has a brief overview of CAS up over at TbV. It looks like both sides can use the transcripts, exhibits and briefs from May as they see fit, as well as introduce new/different evidence or arguments.
For a theme song, how about Public Enemy, “Fight The Powers That Be?” Whaddaya think?
…
Too on the nose, huh?
Morgan, more headlines. “American cyclist Floyd Landis will appeal doping ruling in last-chance bid to keep Tour title ” Landis says he won the Tour “fair and square”” “Defiant cyclist Landis isn’t losing sleep over losing Tour de France title”. Rant would be able to comment more on the impact that a good headline has on the public’s perception of events but they are designed to catch your eye and get you to read the article. If you don’t read the article then perhaps the headline will be impactful enough for you to form an opinion based on it. And sway you. So, yes i do think that a good headline has the ability to force the general publics view of the world. And unfortunately some will force public opinion against FL.
As far as a theme song, at this point it could be “I Fought the Law and the Law Won” but hopefully that will change.
Bill, back on your earlier post, I’ll give your test answer an A-. I was going to give it an A, but I didn’t want you to get overconfident.
Luc,
You’re spot on in your observations about the power of headlines. They grab your attention, and because many readers don’t go further than the headlines, they have a powerful influence on what people believe about a given story. Sometimes the headline can present a wrong impression of what the story says, which is bad. Especially given that many people won’t read further.
…
A good headline can have a big impact on how people perceive a story or an event. And screaming headlines like we saw in the aftermath of the arbitrator’s ruling have a definite negative impact. Should Landis prevail at the CAS, the headlines from that might have a positive impact on the public’s perception of Floyd Landis. Probably not that much, unfortunately, because most people’s minds were made up in the first days after the story broke last year.
…
It’s a heavy responsibility to accurately sum up a story in less in so few words. Some copy editors do it well, and some don’t. And some organizations, as a whole, do it better (or worse) than others.
William,
That’s a pretty good candidate for a theme song right now. The title says it all.
“I fought the law” was my first choice too, but having been taken, I’ll offer the first few verses of “The Guns of Brixton:”
–
When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun
–
When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting on death row
–
–
Or perhaps the end of Linton Kwesi Johnson’s Street 66:
–
When all on a sudden
Bam, bam, bam, a knocking pon the door
“Who is dat?”, aksed Weston, feeling right
“Open up, it’s the police, come on, open up”
“What address do you want?”
“Number 66, come on, open up”
Weston, feeling high, replied, “Yes, this is Street 66, step right in and
take some licks.”
–
–
Drat, I need to listen to some happier music!
–
TBV
{ 2 trackbacks }