Some comments by the USADA gang yesterday, following news that Floyd Landis would appeal the arbitration decision against him, just stick in my craw. It’s not as much who made the comments as much as it is the attitude that each one clearly represents.
First, let’s look at what Matthew Barnett (one of USADA’s hired guns) said, as quoted in an article by Bonnie Ford at ESPN.com:
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.”
Can you imagine a prosecutor bemoaning the fact that someone convicted of a crime had the moxie to appeal? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a statement like that by a prosecutor before, and that’s what Barnett was, as were Richard Young and Travis Tygart (although Tygart basically farmed out the case to Young’s firm).
By making such a statement, Barnett shows how little respect he has for Landis, and quite likely for any other athlete who has the misfortune to get caught in USADA’s crosshairs. Even if most who are accused are truly guilty of doping, those individuals are entitled to due process. Saying what he did about Landis’ appeal as a demonstration of “how fair the system is” is just a gratuitous attack. Every once in a while, a truly innocent person gets caught. And sometimes an innocent person gets wrongly convicted.
It is no waste of time or resources to allow those who have the misfortune of encountering the anti-doping authorities on the ADAs home turf their full rights. The reason people are allowed to appeal, in large part, is to provide the opportunity for an athlete to right a wrong judgment — or for that matter, for an ADA to punish someone they believe got a free pass from the first arbitration panel.
Which brings me to the flip side of the current situation. Can you imagine Barnett bemoaning what an awful waste of time and resources, and what a burden the appeal would be had the verdict gone the other way? Meaning: If it were USADA appealing a decision in Landis’ favor? I think not.
I do happen to think a lot of time and resources have been wasted on this whole process, in large part due to the structural flaws of the system. It’s shocking that to defend himself, Landis spent $2 million so far. And the amount USADA has spent to prosecute the case is probably equally large. Of course, if Barnett is so concerned with the cost involved in prosecuting a case to its final conclusion, perhaps he could do his work pro bono. Call me a cynic, but I doubt that’s going to happen.
And then, of course, there’s a comment by Travis Tygart, himself, as reported at VeloNews.
“The option to appeal is part of the process,” Tygart said. “He has that right, but we would prefer to spend our energies celebrating the accomplishments of clean athletes. Every penny spent litigating cases like this takes away from that.”
Frankly, I’m not so concerned with USADA’s expenses in terms of time or “energy,” because this is what they are here for. As Bill Hue said in a comment at TBV, they’re the US Anti-Doping Agency, not the “US Support Clean Athletes Agency (USSCAA).” It’s their job to go after people who’ve committed doping offenses.
I’m not sure exactly how USADA goes about celebrating the accomplishments of clean athletes. I’ve never heard Tygart speak up and say, “Hey, how about that George Hincapie? He won the Tour of Missouri clean.” I’ve not heard anything remotely close to that reported from Tygart’s mouth. Maybe I’ve just haven’t been reading the right publications.
Maybe every Friday at 5 p.m., the USADA staff all get together and go to their local watering hole and toss down a few drinks in praise of the clean athletes everywhere. Yeah, I can see that happening. Or maybe they hold big parties after major events like the Tour of California, and they invite all of the cyclists they think are clean (and perhaps a few who are suspected of doping) for an evening of drinks, dining and anti-doping education.
Educating athletes of all ages about the dangers of doping would be a good thing. And it certainly would be a good use of USADA’s money to develop such programs. Just as long as they don’t make an update to Reefer Madness called “Doping Madness.”
But come on. Celebrating the clean athletes? That’s not why USADA exists. They exist to catch those who cheat, and to bring them to justice. Right now it’s a perverted system of justice, and it’s sorely in need of fixing, but that’s why they’re here. If it weren’t for those who cheat, USADA wouldn’t exist. So I don’t buy what Tygart’s selling.
The subtext of both comments bothers me. Sure, they won the first round. And they may even win the second round. Given how structurally bad the current arbitration process is — as it was created by WADA and their minions — without an appeal process, there would be no checks and balances on the anti-doping agencies unbridled power.
Is Tygart just trying to find a polite way to say, “Hey, anyone we charge with doping is guilty. We’d really rather they didn’t fight us, as it distracts us from doing more important things — like playing Dungeons and Dragons. It’s such a bother to have to actually do some work.”
So let’s step back and take a look at whose time and resources have been wasted here? USADA exists to prosecute those accused of doping. If it hadn’t been Floyd Landis in the last year, it might well have been another big name athlete. Tygart, Young, Barnett and company would all have been busily carving other notches in their six-shooters. Do you really believe that most or all the money spent prosecuting Floyd Landis wouldn’t have been spent prosecuting someone else?
I find that a bit hard to imagine. Especially given that about two-thirds of USADA’s budget comes from our tax dollars, and most appropriations of the type USADA receives fall into the “use it or lose it” variety. Whatever posturing they’re doing, it has nothing to do with wasting time and resources. It has to do with spin and public relations. This is appropriations season in Washington. What you’re hearing from Team USADA sounds very much to me like a campaign to get those who fund the agency to kick in more.
The idea that one can fix a broken system by throwing more money at it doesn’t wash. Take a look at the major doping cases that have been broken over the last four or five years. How many of those cases were because of the anti-doping agencies and how many were the work of police agencies? The majority of the really big cases — BALCO, Oil for Drugs, Operacion Puerto and Operation Raw Deal, for example — were broken by law enforcement. The anti-doping agencies, while catching individuals here and there, have had very few major busts to their names. And the lab work behind some of the more prominent cases has been of dubious quality.
There needs to be a re-evaluation of just what kinds of programs and methods are the most effective in terms of discouraging doping and catching those who do so. And we should do that long before we toss increased amounts of funding at USADA or WADA. So, while Barnett and Tygart can crow about just how fair the system is, and just how much it costs to prosecute these cases, let’s recognize their statements for what they really are: an appeal for more money directed at those who fund the agencies.
Rant — As ever you always manage to surprise me at what a gentle person you are. So that there is no false impression — I say this as a true compliment. I say this because I can tell that you are angered also. You call the behavior of the scoundrels at USDA a case of “bad attitudes”. I think you are more then a gentleman for doing so.
–
Well, I find no such urges within me. I choose to call them scoundrels because I think they have “No Ethics!” — because only people who have no respect for the rights of others can rationalize such behavior and act on it. Only people with a fanatics belief in their own `right stance´ can turn around and behave in such unethical manner.
–
One is shocked and dismayed that Matthew Barnett and Travis Tygart — both Officers of the Court, officers of the LAW – can sink so low, can have lost what they worked so hard to earn as lawyers to behave in public as they have been doing. I don’t think it is merely a case of having `bad attitudes´ – I think it is a case of having lost their sense of ETHICS. The statements of both men show them to be only interested in “winning at all cost” — fair play and justice be damned.
–
Neither man is stupid, but they are prejudiced. These men seem to have sold themselves to be a part a system that `believes´ all athletes are liars. They have abdicated from the ideal of “innocent till proven guilty.” They tarnish their honor as officers of the court. Not the mere hodgepodge that is WADA ruled – but the school of law that they have worked hard to be a part of, to uphold. They have lost their ETHICS!
Follow the money.
If USADA didn’t prosecute cases, they would get no funding. They just reeled in a big fish and that prize will win them funding in the future. Maybe Congress would give USADA’s money to Lance to fight cancer if the “fight” against dopers was not so publicly “successful”. Then Travis and new USADA General Counsel William Bock III would be out of jobs.
Rant…as always, thoughtful post.
I have followed the Landis case and the Duke LaCrosse case unfold.
Interesting to think that Mike Nifong must be lamenting the fact that he couldn’t have tried his case in USADA/WADA World. From all appearances, he would have 3 innocent individuals (per NC AG) in jail for 30 years, his law license and pension.
Sad to think, yet probably true…
Regards,
David McGraw
It is not uncommon for convicted criminals as well as those who did not get their desired result in civil court (think Brown vs Board of Ed, for example) to appeal, at times all the way to the Supreme Court. I have never heard of the prosecution making statements like these. I have heard commentators make remarks about “activist courts” when a decision results in some new precedence contrary to the right wing point of view, but such comments are directed at the decision and not at the right of someone to appeal. We here are directing comments against the original hearing decision (and the process involved) and not at the right of the USADA to prosecute athletes. Are these people so arrogant that they must continually put down Landis just for exercising his rights?
Could this be from a bit of fear? As I see it, CAS is not part of the WADA system; they review cases other than doping related. The Landaluze case shows that, at least in that instance, they were more concerned that rules were followed than just busting alleged dopers at any cost to the athlete’s rights.
William — I think that it may very well be a case of insecurity with – and as you put it — fear — that drives Matthew Barnett and Travis Tygart to `publicly´ try to hatchet job Floyd Landis. They have gotten lazy — they had so much success before in finding athletes guilty in the public press — they may have actually come to believe their own press releases. What do they say – 30 cases — 30 convictions?
–
They must have such contempt for the intelligence of athletes and the viewing public, to allow themselves the delusion that they can get away with it.
–
Judge Hue — if you want to run for anything — you get my vote. Thanks for keeping these fires burning.
Rant, your comments on USADA celebrating clean athletes are hilarious. If you look at the Tygert interview in DP early this year (www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=10343), he said repeatedly that athletes like Tyler Hamilton and Tim Montgomery had wasted the time and resources of USADA that could have gone to clean athletes. What is he talking about? Is USADA giving out prizes or something to the riders with the prettiest GC/MS charts? Thanks for pointing out this nonsense.
…
I think that USADA’s comments indicate that the FL case has put real strain on USADA’s budget. By all reports, USADA’s budget is at around $12 million per year. According to one report (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64234-2005Jan10.html), in 2002 USADA prosecuted 33 athletes at a cost to USADA of around $1 million. That’s around $30,000 per case. Now, given that FL spent about $2 million on his defense, what do you figure USADA spend on the prosecution? Maybe $1 million? That’s pretty much going to blow the $30,000 per prosecution figure all to hell.
…
USADA also has the BALCO thing going on. By early 2005, USADA had spent about $1.7 million on BALCO. Don’t know what they’re spending on BALCO now. The interviewer in the DP article cited above asked Tygert a number of specific budget questions, and Tygert ducked them all. I guess he does not want Suh, Jacobs et. al. to know his breaking point, and I can’t blame him for that!
…
The idiocy of Tygart’s comments reflects, I think, the fact that USADA’s budget is pretty much blown to pieces at this point. People tend to act badly when they’re going broke. Tygert is right, in that money spent on the FL case is not being spent elsewhere. You have to wonder what work USADA has dropped in order to pursue FL, and at what cost to USADA’s overall mission.
Rant
.
I was reminded recently that 130 death row inmates, convicted by a jury of their peers have been exonerated by science and DNA evidence. While Floyd is not facing the dire consequences as they did, analogies between the two can be made. I myself am waiting for science and reason to prevail for Floyd.
.
It is frustrating that the USADA and their legal counsel are blind to science and facts and are now relishing the lift of the gag order.
.
What do you think as a “stakeholder” of the USADA that we should be asking USADA for detailed line items in their annual report on the amount spent on trying the Landis case?
.
In the May hearing, Barnett was the guy who did USADA’s examination of Greg Lemond and Joe Papp. He also examined Landis, but focused mostly on other doping incidents at Phonak (trying to establish guilt by association?) and on Floyd’s interactions with Lemond.
So he’s sort of an expert when it comes to wasting time and resources.
Rant,
_
I sometimes think that you must be able to hear what I am yelling at my monitor.
_
Today’s lesson: The anti doping organization’s ultimate goal is to support non doping athletes. Not to catch dopers.
_
I feel enlightened.
http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk
–
I would strongly recommend to every one who has not read this interview — to do so. It is very enlightening — especially if anyone is interested in what type of “attacks” may be awaiting us — since we are championing Floyd Landis and a fair system.
–
Travis Tygart is the Senior Managing Director and General Counsel for the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).
–
Mr Travis states: “I find that those individuals who claim anti-doping agencies (“ADAs”) are more interested in winning cases that finding the truth, are usually either defense attorneys who have a profit motive to make such claims or reporters looking to create a story and sell newspapers.” – “Those claims are simply detached from reality” – “People with a true understanding of what USADA does, know better.”
–
So what have we got here? Well — according to Mr Tygart — if we find his methods of work are wanting — we can consider ourselves “detached from reality.” If we persist — then we are not able to “understand” the role and purpose of the USADA.
–
If we accuse the ADA’s of impropriety then we are — “individuals who claim anti-doping agencies (“ADAs”) are more interested in winning cases that finding the truth,” and more then likely we are either defense attorneys or reporters who — ” have a profit motive to make such claims or reporters looking to create a story and sell newspapers.”
–
Well — I’m not a defense attorney — nor am I a reporter. There are attorneys and even a judge who write their opinions here — but I don’t believe any of them is getting paid or getting a chunk of the money pie Mr Tygart is eating from.
–
According to Mr Tygart — he got into his position by being inspired by his own -“Participation in sports as a player and coach taught me to value the ethics of athletic competition including fair play, hard work, team work and playing by the rules.”
–
In my opinion — Mr Tygart must have been coaching and learning from Stalin — there can be no other explanation.
–
My personal comments — while heart felt should not be taken with any more weight as Mr Tygarts’ — but they are presented with the idea to illustrate the concept of absurdity. Or more plainly put — The pot calling the kettle black!
Did Floyd Landis REALLY spend $2 million on his defense?
The answer is “no.”
His attorney admitted as much at a press conference, saying Floyd has “lost income and earnings potential equal to $2 million dollars.”
This is far different than having spent $2 million.
Just clarifying something that’s been wrong in a lot of publications…
What exactly is your point Doak?
Doak,
I’d be interested in getting a link to those comments, if you can provide it. One point, whatever the exact figure is, lost income and earnings potential really isn’t a cost of his defense. It’s the impact of the scandal on Landis’ finances. That would have happened whether he fought the charges or not. The lost income, etc. could even be more than that, from the lost endorsements and so on that can’t really be quantified, because they never even happened.
…
Given the legal horsepower of Landis’ defense team, the lawyers’ associates, fees for experts and so on, the sum Landis spent for his defense is enormous. More than any average athlete could bear. And in a recent appeal from the Floyd Fairness Fund, it was mentioned that he still owes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for his hearing in May. Perhaps that’s been raised by now, but it’s certainly indicative of the magnitude of what he had to spend.
…
Anyway, if you can provide a link to that quote, I’d appreciate it.
– Rant
It would be an innaccurate estimation of lost earnings and endorsements; the real figure for that is probably closer to $10 million rather than $2. For simple refutation, Landis’ bonus from Phonak for the win would have been two million by itself, plus salary escalators for ’07 and other earnings and endorsements.
–
It’s probably fair to say the other gravy might have been smaller due to other changes in the cycling environment — perhaps five million instead of ten million total.
–
I’ve heard the $2 million cost for the defense from enough qualified sources I take it as an accurate estimate /- 20% or so.
–
As with Rant, I’d like to see a citation for Doak’s remarks from Suh, which are inconsistent with what I understand from other sources.
–
(Having to put dashes in to force paragraphs is odd!)
TBV
The Suh remark, taken at face value and perhaps out of context, does not address in any way how much FL has spent on his defense. It just makes a statement about his lost income and earnings. It is quite possible that FL has paid $2 mil in defense, and lost an additional $2 mil in income.
It would seem that we have lost the thread of the original topic here.
–
Perhaps it is just me — please explain at what point Floyd Landis’ character and or ethics could have been brought into serious question?
–
Doak — made a statement — “”¦Did Floyd Landis REALLY spend $2 million on his defense? The answer is “no.” — When addressed directly — WHAT IS THE POINT OF HIS QUESTION? — Doak has not replied.
–
I for one – feel no need to defend Floyd Landis to such obviously “empty” baseless accusations. It is not a question of Floyd Landis having no “ethics” RATHER — that the people who are prosecuting him — THROUGH their actions and speech — PROVE THEMSELVES TO BE – without HONOR or ETHICS!
–
As I stated — perhaps I am merely dense — but I don’t see why we are wasting time with such scenarios? ESPECIALLY since the person “Doak” is either uninterested in answering — or because when asked directly — he cannot back up his INSINUATION!
–
ANYONE can make stupid and substanceless statements — it is a waste of time to fence with such people — no amount of reason or logic will change such a mind — such a mind, certainly is not INTERESTED in “truth” — but rather is interested in foisting its prejudices on everybody else. Why bother with such people?
Sorry, been travelling, did not see that my estimate of a $2 million FL defense bill needed to be justified. See the LA times article by Michael Hiltzik at http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-landis11oct11,1,5522255.story?coll=la-headlines-sports.