For Others, Not So Much
In a few short hours, the UCI and the Tour de France organization will present Oscar Pereiro Sio with a yellow jersey to symbolize his “victory” in the 2006 Tour de France. It is a premature celebration, however. Floyd Landis, the cyclist who rode into Paris on July 24, 2006 wearing the leader’s jersey, is appealing the ruling last month that stripped him of his Tour title and imposed a two-year suspension, nonsensically dated from January 30th of this year.
Whether Landis wins or loses his appeal, it is simply wrong to be affording Pereiro this honor at this time. The issue has not been completely decided, and prudence (which neither Pat McQuaid nor Christian Prudhomme have exhibited in any great abundance) would suggest that before holding such a ceremony they wait and see what the Court of Arbitration for Sport will have to say about the issue. While it’s rare that the CAS would overturn a decision, it’s also not an impossibility. Awarding Pereiro the maillot jaune at this point may well lead to an embarrassing problem down the line, should the CAS not come to the same conclusion as the AAA/USADA arbitration panel.
McQuaid and Prudhomme each have an uncanny ability to put the cart before the horse. Pereiro, no doubt, feels relieved that his long wait is finally over. What will he say in a few months, however, should the CAS rule that Landis didn’t dope, and that the title should revert back to the man who wore the jersey in Paris? I’d certainly like to be a fly on the wall when Landis and Pereiro have their first conversation following that kind of announcement. I’m sure it would be very interesting to hear.
Truth be told, the 2006 Tour de France (which will no doubt go down in history as the longest-running TdF of all time) is far from over. Pat McQuaid and Christian Prudhomme are anxious to show that the UCI and the ASO are moving on and moving forward. I’m sure they’re ready to put this whole episode in the past. In fact, that seems to be the purpose of today’s charade — to put the 2006 Tour firmly in the past, with no possibility that any decision in the future will change what these two deem to be the proper outcome. McQuaid and Prudhomme are engaging in a bit of psychological warfare here. It’s as if to say to Floyd Landis, “Don’t bother fighting this appeal. It’s over. We won. You lost.”
But it’s not over, and no amount of symbolic ceremonies can change that simple fact. Even if the dynamic duo are trying to act like the 800-pound gorilla in the room and declare this case over, they can’t. Now that the appeal has been filed, only the CAS can say that the case is over and done with.
When the CAS decision comes, it may reverse the AAA/USADA decision. Or it may not. It may simply move back the start of Landis’ two-year suspension to July 27th, 2006 — the proper date to start his suspension, given his circumstances since that time. Because once the word leaked out (thank you, Mr. McQuaid), Landis was no longer able to compete, given the “ethics rules” of the ProTour. Suspended and then fired. With no team, he’d have no easy entry in any races at the level which he is used to competing. Whatever you wish to call it, July 27th, 2006 is the true beginning of Landis’ de facto suspension. What UCI-sanctioned race would have allowed him to compete after that date? Answer: None.
Whatever the CAS says may well be the final word (in a legal sense) about the case. But that’s of no matter to our erstwhile odd couple. Since Pat and Christian seem to be hell-bent on doing this, here’s a bit of advice for those presenting Pereiro with the yellow jersey: Make sure he knows that this may just be a temporary thing, at some point in the future he may have to give it back. And don’t hand over any prize money just yet. It may have to be redistributed in a few months.
Oscar may have problems of his own if, in fact, he is “Orca” in Operation Puerto. Having blood bags in Madrid caused Basso and Ulrich to be kicked out of the 2006 Tour, as you will recall. Mention of Alberto Contador in OP documents has cast a shadow over his 2007 tour win. Pereiro was Landis’ teammate at Phonak in 2005, so he has the same problem of association that Landis had. Maybe ASO should have a back -up ceremony for actual winner Carlos Sastre. Uh oh, that may not be advisable either.
Amen Bill, maybe the pending investigation of “Orca” is the 800 pound gorilla’s cousin. It would behoove Pereiro to watch what he says today, many Landis supporters I am sure will be listening.
str
Has anything come of the allegations regarding Contador? As I recell, the UCI said more or less that they’d look into it. I haven’t seen anything since August, except to reference the fact that allegations were made. If nothing has come of any investigations, it would perhaps be nice if a statement were made. But perhaps UCI is worried this could bring doping at the Tour back into the news, so perhaps they are content to let it die w/o any statement clearing AC.
–
Or perhaps they have let AC know he is cleared, but put a gag order on him to cut down on any negative publicity such an announcement could make.
–
And meanwhile we still wait for Mayo’s B results.
As far a what could happen if Landis is cleared by CAS, would it be possible that CAS could spell out it a favorable decision what ASO/UCI is to do to make Landis whole again.? Perhaps even to forestall any attempt by AFLD to prosecute if Landis is cleared by CAS? After all, CAS seems to be the final level of appeal.
The `Odd Couple´ – Pat and Christian — episode 30 — Pat is heard saying to Christian – “Put on that glass slipper — even if you have to use Vaseline to do it!” — The audience goes wild with laughter!
–
Andrew Hood – VeloNews European correspondent writes — “Oscar Pereiro’s wait in Tour de France purgatory is about to end. Tour director Christian Prudhomme, ASO president Patrice Clerc and Spanish sports minister Jaime Lissavetzky will officiate the ceremony.”
–
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/cycling/ – as of 7:37 pm this evening — surprisingly finds the “anointing” of the Yellow to Oscar — not worth mentioning.
–
Me? — I’m sitting here chewing my nails to the quick — because I haven’t come up with any brilliant ideas on how to get the CAS to be held open to the public!
–
Yeah — you guess right — I do hope that Floyd gets JUSTICE from CAS — but I also have learned — you only get “justice” when EVERYTHING is done transparently — read “open to the public” — NO — I don’t trust anyone in cycling today — except for Floyd — to do the right thing. And we wouldn’t be here if Floyd didn’t “open” his case to the public.
–
So for me it is seemingly simple — Do I sit back and watch the – “Behind Closed Doors” series — or do I line up and start learning to flap my jowls and toot my horn when I get to hear the “news” release from Le Equipe or The UCI — Telling me “how it is?”
Lets also not forget that Oscar did test positive for Salbutamol in addition to his possible ties to OP. True, he may have had a TUE, but one has to wonder just how hard it is to find a doctor that will diagnose you with asthma and give you a prescription.
ddt240:
I suspect there may be some truth in general to what you speculate regarding doctors willing to sign of on a TUE that may in fact not be called for. However, in the absence of any solid evidence of doctors fraudulently singing for TUEs, this is one can of worms I would not particularly want to see opened. After all, any 2 doctors can often disagree regarding treatment of a given condition, do we really wan to put WADA/UCI in the position of passing professional judgement on a doctor?
I agree with you (Rant) regarding the handing of the jersey to Oscar P.
—
What a mess. I wonder why Discovery folded? (-sarcasm-)
“Finally! It has been long, too long, you are a late winner but a real winner,” said Prudhomme. “You have the right to your place among the winners of the Tour, it was on the road that you won.”
–
I love reading “rewritten” history — Mr Prudhomme — my problem with yours is that it lacks — dare I say it – a certain credibility?
–
I don’t know about the rest of you — but I am finding it way to easy to sink to the level of blogging that seems prevalent in todays commentary media. So — I am making a conscious choice. I shall stick to the point that is concrete and fair.
–
Floyd Landis is getting robbed! It doesn’t matter what the “motivation” of the scoundrels that are trying with all their might to rob him. The simple fact is — they feel safe to do so!
–
I for one will not allow some people to call my own intelligence, nothing more then “mere interpretation” of the Landis Case. No one else should allow this either! — NOT if you understand and believe what conclusions may be drawn from the Landis Case findings!
–
I believe that the scoundrels running the “circus” would like nothing better then for all of us to use the same measures that they have had so many years to perfect — innuendo, hearsay and public manipulation! — NO — I will stick with arguing for Floyd — because I know that the case he presented is truthful and has merit!
–
Judge Hue — your deconstruction of the Landis Case made it available and understandable to anyone who chose to look at it with the aim to understanding. I will not insult all your efforts by simply ignoring what I have learned from you.
–
William — your logic and intelligence comes through clearly and fully comprehensible — even under great pressure. I will not betray your efforts either nor the gift of logic that you share with us.
–
Rant — I participate in your blog because you never sink low, merely to get in a “cheap shot” when nobody’ looking.
–
We have no “power” to call the ARB’s on their interpretation of the Landis Case — OTHER THEN — our intellects, our thinking and our gut feeling that what is going on in the cycling world is not kosher! It is biased, it is slanted and it is run by people who think that the concept of fair play means that they call the shots and everyone else accepts it and shuts the hell up – if they disagree!
–
Take the first fifty top cyclists who are “winning” today and dig a little and you will find that almost everyone of them is “under suspicion” for one thing or another. We hear daily how “cycling needs to be cleaned up” — well — let us really make a true effort.
–
Starting with seeing clearly that the so called “Cycling Governing Bodies” have managed to create a “unique” situation for themselves – where there are one set of rules for the riders and another that is for them! With an option that the riders can never hope for — the riders can never “just ignore the rules” when it doesn’t back them up!
Rant, it always amazes me how prolifically you can write interesting blog entries on this topic. I certainly hope that some day have your ability to consistently write thoughtful articles on a very regular basis.
On the topic of your article, the mind game message to Floyd Landis with the awarding Oscar Pereiro the yellow jersey prior to the completion of the appeal is an interesting observation. We can only hope that this premature awarding of the yellow jersey to Oscar Pereiro comes back to haunt Pat McQuaid and Christian Prudhomme.
Guys, exactly WHEN would the Tour be permitted to recognize Pereiro as the 2006 winner? If not after the arbitration hearing, then when? The suggestion here is that the Tour should wait until after the CAS decision. But what if FL then seeks to have the decision reviewed in federal court? Should the Tour have to wait until the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled or passed?
…
The question is not whether McQuaid and Prudhomme may end up looking foolish, since after all, what else is new? The question is whether the Tour has grounds to declare Pereiro the winner at this point? I have not looked at all the rules (I’m traveling), but the WADA rules DO provide that arbitration decisions remain effective while under appeal.
…
Rant, on the question of when FL’s suspension should begin, see WADA anti-doping code Section 10.8: suspension begins on the date of the hearing decision, with credit for any period of Provisional Suspension. The WADA rules are not exactly clear on what is meant by a “Provisional Suspension”, but the rules seem to anticipate that something formal would be required to start a Provisional Suspension. It does not appear that you would have a Provisional Suspension automatically on a sample testing positive. Can you explain why you think there was a Provisional Suspension in place as early as July 27 2006?
Larry,
I see your point. From my point of view, they should wait until the CAS makes their ruling, as the case is ongoing. But that’s not how the rules are written, apparently. Once the CAS decides, then declaring an official winner makes sense to me. The possibility of further court action is beyond the control of the CAS or the others within the system. And by the way the rules currently are written, as a matter of sport (though not necessarily law), the CAS is the final arbiter.
…
Regarding provisional suspensions, Landis was suspended from racing by his team on as soon as they were informed of the A sample result. Not a “Provisional Suspension,” per se, but a suspension nonetheless. Once he was fired, there was no way any UCI sanctioned race would allow him in. To do so would potentially have a negative impact on all the racers who competed there with them, as various federation’s rules prohibit competition in races with accused dopers. So, even though nothing formal had been done, the fact was Landis wasn’t competing and that he wouldn’t be allowed to compete. In the “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck” category, that sounds like a suspension to me. The panel’s decision basing the date on January 30th of this year, is due to a letter he had to write in order to get the French case put on hold, where he said he would voluntarily not race in France.
…
It could have been worse. I’ve heard rumors that USADA’s position was that his suspension should have started from the date of the arbs decision. But if fairness is any guide, the man hasn’t raced since July 27th, 2006 in any UCI sanctioned events. So that’s when I think his suspension should start — given the current circumstances, that is. I don’t believe the arbs made the right decision on guilt or innocence.
I don’t know who the author is, but there is a very good deconstruction of the scientific arguments concerning the Landis Case on TBV – it takes a little effort but it is worth reading. Essential if we are to “argue” this case with validity.
Rant and Larry:
I have heard commentators on TV during races refer to banned riders discribe their suspensions as dating from the time they were suspended by their team as the date of the total suspension. This in the context of “Rider X can start this race since his suspension started at such-and-such time”. So it would seem that in some cases, at least, suspension was deemed to date from the time a rider was suspended on the basis of a positive test. I am guessing that perhaps these above referenced cases may be ones where the rider did not contest the test results, but it seems grossly unfair to penalize a rider for exercising his legal right to a hearing. But then the whole Landis affair seems to be one where USADA as an agent of WADA are making the statement “Do not mess with us, we will destroy you”.
–
Regarding the award of the Yellow Jersey: I can see that ASO/UCI does have a case for doing so at this time. But perhaps a bit more discretion could have been used. No ceremony, just a news release, But again, I believe that they were trying to make a statement here.
They were trying to make a statement. . .
_
Hmm, what could that be?
_
“We’ve rigged the event, so we are going to choose the winner. Don’t worry our opinion is the final say. Oh, by the way, we can make that Pereiro-Puerto thing go away if he just poses with the yellow jersey. Rightfully won or not.”
_
or maybe: “We’re incompetant at public relations. We just want to make FL as unpopular as possible. We don’t actually care if our tv viewership next year is less than zero.”
_
I just don’t get it. Remember, ultimately this is just a business. Why wouldn’t they try to avoid any FL publicity as if it were the plague? If FL didn’t do it, he is one of those strangely idiosyncratic characters that could be wildly popular; by trying to bring him down ASO/UCI is merely bitting the hand that feeds them. If FL did do it, why would you keep talking about it? Last thing everyone needs is more bad press.
_
The whole thing is so obtuse I am at a loss.
For quite some time before the hearing was even held, Prudhomme was making statements to the effect “as far as we are concerned, FL is out and OP is in”. The whole statement here is basically “don’t mess with the system, we can and will swat you down. Better just to roll over and take your medicine.” While Landis could have become a very popular figure, who won despite long odds and physical problems, the drug charges have thrown a big monkey wrench into things. The court of public opinion is at best divided as regards to Landis. To plenty of people, he is just a doper who got caught and he should just shut up and go away; and to others they just don’t care one way or another. Basically, as far as ASO is concerned, Landis is a non-person. They only mention his name if they absolutely have to.
–
At this stage, I think that nobody wants to delve too deeply into any Operation Puerto connections with Pereiro, both to avoid any negative publicity and to avoid further muddying the waters by DQing another “winner”.
UCI has bullied the riders including Pereiro into giving DNA samples. There is precedent for the UCI being given the evidence from criminal investigations in Europe. Assume UCI gains custody of the OP blood bags. Assume as well that riders’ DNA is compared to the blood in the bags and that DNA can be matched. Should the new “podium” of the 2006 Tour be concerned? Landis sure wouldn’t be but you go about 17 deep into that field and it gets really “interesting”. Time will tell. One thing is certain. If the Spanish Cycling Federation and Spanish ADA have anything to say about it, no Spanish rider will be implicated.
Morgan,
TBV wrote the 7 Paragraphs article at Trust But Verify. I added some of the smaller parts to the “Appeal Brief We’d like to See” article about the stuff I like: fairness, standards of proof and burden flips.
Bill
Morgan,
Those two articles at TBV (the one you mentioned and the one Bill mentions) are excellent. If I have time tonight, I’ll write up my thoughts on what they’ve said, but in the meantime, here’s the Cliff’s Notes version: These are two more of the articles that should be required reading for anyone interested in the Landis case.
{ 1 trackback }