I’ve been busy tonight, working on an interview that will be appearing here in the near future, so I don’t have much time for writing a “full length” Rant. A couple of articles came out in the last 24 hours or so that should be required reading for any student of the Floyd Landis case. Both articles offer the kind of analysis that has been missing from the latest reporting by many in the mainstream media.
First up, the article Seven Paragraphs over at Trust But Verify. In the article, TBV very meticulously combs through the most crucial paragraphs in the majority opinion that found Floyd Landis guilty of doping in the 2006 Tour de France. What he finds are contradictions between the stated reasoning in the opinion, and the actual testimony. Where Dr. Brenna’s testimony, taken as a whole, was clearly impeached during the hearing, the majority cherry-picked portions of that testimony to back up their assertions. TBV also detects some inconsistencies or misunderstandings by the majority of the the science in the case.
Next up, is another article at TBV, called Our Appeal Brief. In this article, TBV and Bill Hue lay out their take on what Team Landis might want to focus on when writing up their briefs for the CAS panel that will decide Landis’ case in the coming months. Take the time to follow the link above. It’s a well-written piece that gives some good suggestions on what avenues Team Landis has when challenging the first panel’s decision. For those who support Landis, the good news is that there are a number of possibilities for Team Landis to consider. If the CAS really does hear the case and return an opinion in their “average” amount of time, we could see their ruling sometime in February.
Of course, nothing about this case has been average so far. Although the CAS doesn’t frequently reverse other rulings, Landis’ case is pretty strong. There’s no guarantees that he will win, but if Team Landis is able to build on what TBV and Bill Hue have said in today’s articles, I wouldn’t bet against him. That said, Floyd may need to think about his winter training plans. If Landis does manage to win Stage 22 (or is it Stage 23?) of the never-ending 2006 Tour de France, he’ll need to be in good shape in order to stage a strong comeback next year.
Rant — the “Appeal” and the “Seven Paragraphs” are two of the nicest piece of logical and fair presentation I have come across. As you say — Yes — it does take a bit of time to read — but let no one fool themselves here — IT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH simply to sprout mere emotional stances — not that we don’t all feel strongly about Floyd and his case, not that we don’t all have strong emotional opinions — BUT TO MAKE REAL PROGRESS — we are going to have to “argue” this case as the “Appeal” and the “Seven Paragraphs” presentations suggest.
–
Judge Hue, TBV — both of you are my heroes – “Appeal” and the “Seven Paragraphs” are just a great pleasure to read — for the first time I feel there is a real cohesive presentation to the problems at hand. There is one suggestion I would like to make for you to consider — IS IT POSSIBLE that we have someone who is not only fluent in French but is also scientifically oriented to make a FRENCH translation of “Appeal” and the “Seven Paragraphs”?
–
I make this small suggestion because we need to be able to reach out to the French speaking population very much involved in this evolving case. The truth would appear to be that this group of the public gets only what “spin” that is out there — this would be a perfect opportunity to start dealing with this. If the EFFORT is made — I believe it would not fall on deaf ears.
–
If we are striving for “fair and impartial” rules and governance in the cycling world – “Appeal” and the “Seven Paragraphs” — are certainly the basis we should start from. It is important to let people know that while we DO SUPPORT Floyd Landis — we are not merely “arguing” his case just to “win!” To me personally this is obvious, but given the impassioned sincere beliefs of everyone involved — EVERYBODY must be given the opportunity to understand that Floyds’ case is a part of a bigger problem. That being — the sorry state of affairs that now exists in the world of WADA, the UCI, USADA, and etcetera.
–
It is also important that we put to rest the idea that this is merely a question of American justice as compared to French or European justice — While I am certain that there are actual legal differences involved — the ideal of “fair and impartial” rules and governance in cycling cannot be allowed to be lost in such “factionalism.” It is possible to come to “fair and impartial” rules and governance in cycling because “fair and impartial” are not the property of ANY particular nation or state. For me – the “Appeal” and the “Seven Paragraphs” are the best possible starting point towards this clear understanding.
Morgan:
You are right, the Landis case isn’t and shouldn’t be about perceived conflicts with US ideas of justice. While the ideals represented by our system may be of value in revising the system, that is for the future. “Appeal” and “Seven Paragraphs” focus on the evidence as presented and the interpretations thereof, which is how Landis will need to proceed. While the odds may be long, let us remember that CAS is not really part of the WADA system and doesn’t have a dog in this fight. They may be more inclined to look at the evidence impartially rather than cherry pick evidence to support a pre-ordained verdict.
William I completely concur. I must admit that coming across The “Appeal” and “Seven Paragraphs” really lifted my spirits. As you say — “CAS is not really part of the WADA system and doesn’t have a dog in this fight.” — One can only hope so. The reason I am not certain of this is simple — most of the troubles we are having to face and deal with are due to “personality and egocentric drives.” The skewered laws we are trying to navigate through did not come into being of themselves.
–
I suggested that we have a good French translation of “Appeal” and “Seven Paragraphs” directly to do with Floyds’ case, not merely as an effort at writing decent rules and laws. It is a sad fact that on this side of the pond — all our efforts are being spun as if we are merely “being clever” — as if we are “trying to get Floyd off through a “technicality.” Most people seem not to be able to get past the “small idea” that the Landis case is merely Floyd trying to “win” by “technicality.” I believe that if we are to address these very real issues that this side of the pond is wrestling with — we must make the extra effort to reach out and truly communicate in their own language. This to me is only logical.
–
I do not happen to be of the crowed that feels the French are “Ami-haters” — I also happen to love the Tour, probably unreasonably, but I admit to finding it truly a grand spectacle and a unique happening as far as bicycle racing goes. I would think that it is IMPORTANT that we work through the xenophobia — on both sides — if we are to come out of this with something that is worth fighting for. I think — the Tour is worth fighting for, as much as I feel that Floyd is worth fighting for as well as making it so damned “hot” for the “powers that be” that they are forced, even kicking and screaming to change the system.
–
As I’ve said before — Floyd Landis has done the cycling world an immeasurably great service. He has provided us a look “behind the closed doors.” He didn’t have to do this. He could have played the “game” — BUT HE DIDN’T — and I for one can only feel thankful to him. And I will use whatever positive means at my disposal to champion his cause.
I’m not sure why there’s a feeling that the CAS is any more removed from the process than the AAA.
…
The CAS was formed by the same people who formed the WADA, the IOC. It is specifically credited as the “brain child” of Samaranch.
…
The arbitrators are nominated in the same way, from a very similar pool by the same people.
…
In 1994 or therabouts, the CAS was taken to court over impartiality issues, and was forced to reform by changing it’s administrative structure and funding structure.
…
Even today, all the members of the CAS are nominated by members of the ICAS (International Court of Arbitration for Sport), who are in turn all nominated by members of either the IOC or National Olympic Committees.
…
If they hadn’t been the arbitrators in the first go-round, McLaren, Brunet, and Campbell could theoretically have formed the CAS panel, as they’re all eligible CAS arbitrators. I can’t imagine why the majority would have done any less legal gymnastics because of the change in initials.
…
The method for picking the tribunal is similar, with one difference – each side picks an arbitrator, and then instead of those two picking a chair, the CAS president of the appeals division then nominates a chair. Barring protest, that’s how the panel is struck – again, putting the athlete at a 2-1 disadvantage.
Jeff you bring up a very important set of observations here. I am not certain how anyone else feels — but my optimism is based not in the CAS being a more “fair” and “just” group, rather that Floyd has at least another chance to work through the athlete grinder that we refer to as controlling authoritative body in cycling and in athletics in general..
–
My hope is that we can “make enough noise” — get the truth out there to as many people as possible — and thereby force the controlling power group to change its ways because it cannot hide behind “closed doors. You must admit — that the general media has never dug as deep as some on this blog or on TBV. I believe every one of these people are fighters — ignoring them will be hard to impossible to do.
–
Lets face it — the scoundrels have been getting away with murder. They have been able to do so, because nobody knew what the real score was — all anyone “knew” is what they put out for “public consumption.” The more you respond to the present situation, the more pressure you can exert.
–
It is also a fact of life — that it is not enough to “merely vent” ones frustrations or anger in the blog media — I am NOT DENYING that we are angry or that we may feel treated unjustly — BUT — to do something constructive — we must strive to use our brains to expose the Cause of such feelings and behavior. That involves more then just vapid or sarcastic statements aimed at those who oppress you.
–
Jeff — please don’t take my statements as high handed. They are not meant to be or so intended. But to be honest — I would rather approach the present situation with my frustrations and anger well stoked but under control. Then there is also the eternal hope that not all people involved in the circus that is the “ruling body in sports” are scoundrels.
–
Maybe I’m naive — but it keeps me going. If I am serious about wanting to bring about change in the world of sports – I do believe I am on the right track here. How do you feel?
My basis for saying that CAS is not part of the WADA system is that they also rule on cases other than those involving doping. One famous such case was that of Paul Hamm. If the name is not familiar, he was an Olympic gymnast competing in the all around competition. After falling in one event, it looked like he was out of the running, but came back in the remaining events to win. (Sound familiar?) Anyway, the 2nd place winner claimed that the judges had made an error in the difficulty rating of his routine. Turns out he was right and if the correct rating had been used, he would have won, not Hamm. However, the deadline for an appeal had passed. He appealled to CAS, who basically told him “Tough luck, should have appealed in a timely manner.” It also turns out the judges had also failed to properly penalize #2 for something. If both scoring errors had not been made, Hamm would have won.
Anyway, CAS is not formally part of WADA system, although they both may be part of a larger system, formally or otherwise.