One To Go
In one week’s time, Floyd Landis and his attorneys will make their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport that the 2006 Tour de France winner deserves his title back. Unlike the hearings last May, at the Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, Landis’ appeal to the supreme court of sport will occur behind closed doors, somewhere in New York City. According to an Associated Press article:
“It will be a hearing behind closed doors unlike the previous arbitration hearing,” CAS secretary-general Matthieu Reeb told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
Although the original hearing being open to the public enabled all of us to see how the sausage … er, decision … in such a case is made, it certainly wasn’t a pretty picture. With the new hearings happening in private, there will be less chance of another circus to distract those who will pass judgment from the real issues at hand. Next week’s hearings are Landis’ last, best hope to clear his name. Even if he succeeds, the damage that has already been done will be difficult — if not impossible — to undo.
The picture painted by the first round of hearings was decidedly unpleasant. One thing became clear, once the case was turned over by USADA to their outside counsel, the focus was no longer on a search for the truth. It was on winning and losing, and doing whatever it takes to win. Fairness was not a part of the equation, at least not for Richard Young and company. Legal maneuvering was. And, to give the devil his due, Young and his associates in certain instances out-maneuvered Landis’ lawyers.
The testimony of at least two witnesses during the Malibu hearings (Greg LeMond and Joe Papp) ultimately proved to be unnecessary, as far as the arbitrators were concerned. Their value to the prosecution may have been more to score public relations points, or to build a secondary, “non-analytical positive” case, should the main evidence have failed. The devastation of The Call certainly wreaked havoc on Landis’ efforts to rehabilitate his name and reputation. But, truth be told, LeMond’s secret would have been exposed during the hearings, regardless. Unfortunately, the way it came out was all the more sensational.
It’s hard not to sympathize with what LeMond went through as a child. The person who preyed on him should be locked up with a burly cellmate named “Bubba.” LeMond’s appearance at the hearing was bound to be provocative. USADA’s lawyers had to know that when the asked him to appear. But, as the majority noted in their ruling, his testimony had nothing to do with the actual offense. The lab’s results were the necessary evidence. And the question of whether the results were reliable was what needed to be determined.
There’s no excuse for The Call. But, at the same time, there’s really no excuse for USADA having Greg LeMond testify. Imagine a different situation. Suppose (and this is a wild one) that LeMond and Landis were great chums, and that LeMond was absolutely convinced that Landis was clean. Showing up to testify in Landis’ favor would have be dismissed just as his actual testimony was. It simply had no bearing on whether or not the lab’s results showed a positive test result.
Starting next Wednesday, another panel of arbitrators will get a chance to look at the evidence against Landis. And it will be up to them to decide whether or not the lab’s results show that Landis doped during the 2006 Tour de France. This time, however, the decision of the panel will be final. There will be no more appeals, for either side, once the arbitrators rule.
According to news reports, the hearing is expected to last six days. What hasn’t been made clear, is whether the CAS tribunal will meet over the weekend, or whether they will take a day or two off. Sunday, March 23rd, is Easter, and I wonder whether or not any hearings would be held on such an important religious holiday.
A spokesman for the CAS is being non-committal about when a ruling might be issued.
Reeb said it was not known when the arbitrators’ final ruling would be given.
“There will be a statement at the end of the hearing to say when it will be issued,” Reeb said.
So, starting somewhere around two weeks from now, the waiting game will begin again.
The Silence of The Lambs?
Interesting thing happening this week. There’s a race going on between Paris (OK, it started a bit south of the City of Light) and Nice. One that has been making the news in recent weeks due to the on-going power struggles between a certain international federation (the UCI) and a certain race promoter (the Amaury Sports Organization, owners of Paris-Nice, the Tour de France and numerous other events).
For all the threats and recriminations, it’s been quite quiet since Sunday. Except, that is, for actual racing news. Somewhere over at UCI headquarters, Pat McQuaid and his minions are probably trying to figure out what to do next. At this point, a number of teams have given McQuaid the proverbial finger by ignoring his warnings of suspensions and fines.
Once the race is over, perhaps McQuaid will lash out again. Or perhaps he will try to find a way to salvage the UCI and the sport of cycling from the wreckage of the recent infighting. I wouldn’t bet on the latter. But it’s certainly nice to have a respite from all of that. We can all get back to following actual races, rather than the political wars of attrition.
Greg’s probably dancing right now, but Richard Burke (Trek Bicycles) passed away last night. Farewell to someone who was instrumental in increasing cycling’s exposure and availability to the masses.
Floyd, Love and Luck in NYC.
RW,
Farewell, indeed. The cycling world is a much better place for Richard Burke’s having been in it.
Of course the 2 sides have tried to win the case. Need they seek the truth? All what we have seen indicate that every side was already knowing the truth before the hearing.
Of course Floyd knows exactly what is the truth, maybe he just don’t understand how his tests became positive despite his cares to avoid or to beat the testings.
And USADA as many people having knowledge of doping process has a lot of clues and indices that show Floyd had doped, not just one times but regularly. In the post “Open and Shut Out” we have discussed a part of this kind of argument 🙁 http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=462 ). So the 2 sides didn’t need to find a already well-known truth. Then USADA has tried to win the case and Floyd’s side has tried to escape the punishment.
Because the hearing was public, USADA provided some pieces of information to help people to build their mind about doping.
Since the beginning of Landis’ case people believing him are fewer day after day with their increasing knowledge.
In the precedent post, that emoticon 🙁 should be read like this : ( , when the 2 caracters are not separated by a space, it is interpreted as an emoticon 🙂 ;D
Jean,
“Truth” is an elusive concept. We all (I suspect, I probably really shouldn’t speak for everyone) have a belief about what the “truth” of the Landis case is. Many people believe he’s guilty. Some of us believe he didn’t do what he’s accused of.
USADA’s Travis Tygart once characterized his agency’s work in such cases as a “search for truth.” While that may be the ideal, I rather doubt that’s how the case was approached by USADA or their lawyers. There are agencies who conduct thorough investigations before bringing charges against an athlete (the Thorpe case and ASADA’s evaluation of the evidence being one very good example). That didn’t happen in the Landis case. Perhaps that was because USADA’s review panel thought the evidence was overwhelming. But during the hearings last May, the evidence didn’t seem as overwhelming. And the way the lab work was performed seemed less than stellar.
The reality is that only a few people know what really happened. The rest of us are left to looking at data and evidence to figure out what we think occurred. Years ago, an author wrote a book called How To Lie With Statistics. The premise is that you can use statistics to prove any point you wish to make. Even to “prove” a point that is demonstrably false. Unfortunately, the same could be said with scientific data. It’s always possible for someone to twist data in a way that “proves” a point.
Now, all that said, I do think it’s USADA’s job to search out the truth. Their job is not to get convictions at any cost. Sometimes, what appears to be true on the surface isn’t true when examined closely. When they sacrifice that search for a wins vs. losses approach, someone eventually is going to suffer. And most likely, it will be an innocent athlete, convicted on evidence not carefully examined. Just as they hold athletes to high standards, the enforcers must be held to high standards.
Just my opinion, but I think they didn’t do their jobs as well as they should have in the Landis case. Had they done so, the results may have been quite different.
Thank you for the update on the Landis case. If the CAS upholds the previous verdict, when would Floyd be able to race again? And do you think he will? Last I heard, he was going to do some MTB races this year.
We’ve been watching Paris-Nice, “a race through the rain,” this week. I’ve also been wondering what if anything is going to happen to those daring to show up at the starting lines.
Jean C,
I don’t think many people have changed their minds at all, if they’d made them up. Those who have published commentsmostly made their positions clear long before the first hearing, and very few have switched sides of the fence. Most people seem to look at any data they receive as further support for the supposition they’d already made.
My position is the tests that I’ve seen aren’t conclusive to the charge that has been made because they were so badly done, and there are no other actual charges.
Beyond that, I don’t know.
What other data is available seems inconclusive to me, and can be argued any way.
TBV
Debby,
If the CAS upholds the original verdict, Floyd would be able to race again starting on January 30, 2009. If they uphold the verdict and change the date of his ban, then that will depend on what the revised date is.
Will he race again? I don’t know. I suspect he would, given the opportunity. We’ll have to wait and see.
Jean C,
I am not sure what you’re arguing here, so forgive me if my response to your post seems to be addressing arguments other than the ones you’re making. If I understand you correctly, then I think you understand the Landis case very well.
Landis was convicted based on some combination of the following conclusions:
1. Nearly all pro cyclists are dopers (remember the words of M. Saugy in Switzerland, that 80% of the peloton doped during the 2007 TdF).
2. In order to win the TdF, you almost certainly must dope (this has been your argument here, I believe).
3. Certain cyclists are more likely to dope than others, and these include Americans, cyclists who have worked with Bruyneel and cyclists who have been teammates of Lance Armstrong.
4. Any performance in the Tour that is heroic and remarkable is probably a performance fueled by dope.
You and I (and others here) have argued the truth of these conclusions. Now, to make it clear, I don’t think that any of these conclusions represent the truth.
But we have to acknowledge that there are many people in cycling who believe these things to be true.
IMHO, Landis’ conviction was based on these conclusions. The arbitrators in the Landis case chose to disregard much of the evidence, and to interpret the remainder of the evidence in a bizarre fashion, based on their certainty that these conclusions are true.
There is much about the Landis case that we can discuss here, if you like. But if I had to describe the Landis case “while standing on one foot”, I’d say simply that the case was decided long before the parties ever stepped into the moot court room in Malibu, based on the certainty of the ADAs that Landis must have doped, and damn the evidence that might point to a different conclusion.
Hey Jean C,
You are very certain that Landis is going to “convicted” of doping….
What if the CAS actually looks at ALL THE AVAILABLE Data – and comes to the conclusion – like many of us have – that the lab work sucked – that the 2 witnesses against him had nothing to do with the case – that WADA Labs MUST have STANDARDS that meet accepted convention – and – THAT HE IS NOT GUILTY…?
But – maybe that is not important to you – because you have yourself convinced that Landis doped…
Rant,
Your account of the USADA is grossly unfair, and you know it. You give absolutely no justification for arguing that Young and co. prosecuted the case unfairly.
The Landis team argued that Landis didn’t use PEDs and would never use it (which Lemond’s testimony contradicted) and that Landis had no reason to use testosterone (which Papp’s testimony contradicted). For people familiar with doping in cycling, this testimony was hardly necessary, but given the context that many people believed the Landis team propaganda it is perfectly understandable why these witnesses were called. Finally, Lemond’s testimony would not have had the effect it did if the Landis team had not sought to intimidate a witness.
Nothing the USADA did even remotely compares to the shoddy ethics of the smear campaign waged by the Landis team; from positing absurd conspiracy theories (popular both here and at TBV, even if you and TBV act as if you are above such theories while your readers continue to cling to them) to suggesting that the case was part of some vendetta against Lance Armstrong. In the end, the actual Landis defense had little in common with the propaganda campaign as typified by Baker’s slideshow. Every step of the way, Landis has not only held firm to the omerta line, he has actively sought to misinform the public about both the doping problem in sport and the circumstances of his own case.
Young and co. have a very tough and thankless job–enforcing the rules and making sure doping offenders don’t get away via expensive and/or bad-faith legal defenses. Young and co. were faced with vast disadvantages in terms of resources and public support (indeed, they were gagged while the Landis team engaged in their smear campaign). They deserve the respect and support of anyone who cares about fair sport and wants to see cycling clean up. Shame on you for participating in the unjustified and dishonest smear campaign against them. When the truth finally comes out, I hope you will have the courage to publicly apologize for your comments.
So let me get this straight – The dopers are getting away with doping because they all have super good lawyers that happen to find “some loopholes”..?
Well hell, Larry – I always knew your kind were at the bottom of all this stuff…really, I mean that…
So dopers are getting away with doping – not because the doping rules and testing is inadequate and performed poorly so that a “lot” fall through the cracks OR are not even tested..?
Larry – on this one – I just can’t see where your kind is involved – but I’d guess you was…really…I mean that…
And Rant – If Young and Co – were not lawyers – I think I would actually find thenm sympathetic…really…I mean that…
And the rest of yous – would be actors posturing with the intent to take an unbiased side or look at something with a legal eye…I resent that…really…I mean that…
Larry,
The arbitrators put out a lengthy justification for their opinion, and as I recall none of the circumstantial factors played a role. Certainly, the abundant circumstantial evidence that Landis doped goes a long way towards convincing me and others, but there could not have been a conviction without a positive based on IRMS testing (in addition to the positives on additional stages, and the additional empirical evidence indicating doping). In short, your conclusion has no factual basis and has no relation to the opinion published by the arbs.
Ludwig,
I never said USADA/Young and compnay prosecuted the case unfairly. I said they were more concerned with winning or losing. One merely needs to look at some of their own tactics to see that. That’s a fair criticism, in my opinion.
Your comments vis-a-vis LeMond’s and Papp’s testimony is true when considering the court of public opinion. But in their written decision, the majority chose to ignore both LeMond’s and Papp’s testimony as not being necessary. The point of putting them on the stand was for their testimony to be heard by the public, not by the arbitrators. And further, it was to sway public opinion. That’s also a fair criticism. It wasn’t necessary to win the case.
As far as Landis’ attempts to rehabilitate his name goes, let me ask you this. If, after the CAS rules, the verdict goes his way, would you see his campaign as that of an innocent person trying to right a wrong, or would you still see it the way you currently do?
If the truth ever does come out, and I’ve been advocating for a fundamentally wrong opinion, I will say so. But, I suspect that whatever the real truth of this case is, it may never be fully known. And such as it is, it will be argued over for quite some time to come.
Ludwig –
I can agree with some of the statements in your post. For example, I agree that the decision of the majority arbs was lengthy.
I agree that the decision published by the majority arbs placed no weight on the Lemond or Papp testimony.
Your statement that “the abundant circumstantial evidence that Landis doped goes a long way towards convincing me and others” is pretty much the gist of my earlier post.
Your statement that “there could not have been a conviction without a positive based on IRMS testing” is true in a sense. There could not have been a conviction without USADA having produced a document package from LNDD that purported to show that Landis doped. My point is that the package shows no such thing.
You state that my conclusion has no factual basis. Well, many people (me included) have argued this factual basis, here and elsewhere. We can do so again. In fact, I’d be happy to do it. But you and I have gotten into these kinds of discussions before. I think you’re a smart guy and I value your contribution here, but you’re going to have to promise to refrain from personal attacks if I’m going to engage you in another dialog.
Larry,
If Landis’case had been the Moreni case maybe the result would have been different for many reasons. We could have remplaced Landis by Vino, Basso, Valverde, Rasmussen,…
I do think that Floyd has weaken his case by his statement against anitidoping instances and the “dishonest” FFF , encouraging them to fight stronger that case than ever!
Despite of all the time invested to find loopholes, no one enough to clear him was found. We have to not forget the other results of other B samples.
Morgan,
I am convicted Floyd doped by what I know what his a possible physical performance! The result o f a trial is just the response at the question: “Is there enough proofs to convince the accused?”
Morgan
I just want to add…
In Landis case I am more upset that the society has to depense a such amount of money for catch a so CLEAR doper! But I am upset that a guy cannot assume his responsabilities, you can easily understand why the peloton want not to see him come back now.
Rant,
The charge that Young is concerned with “winning/losing” is hardly relevant–the fact that the arbitrators decided to uphold the positive ought to be proof enough that the USADA had sufficient evidence to bring the case forward. In any case….no, it’s not fair to castigate Young or say “fairness was not part of the equation” simply because he tried to win. Of course he tried to win–it’s his job. Your language indicates bias, ulterior motives, or shoddy “tactics” on the part of the USADA but you don’t provide a single example confirming such accusations.
Re. the USADA bringing Lemond and Papp forward for PR reasons, I don’t see any evidence that this is the case and you ought to have a basis if you assert it as fact. Whether or not Landis had reason to dope, and whether or not he confessed the doping–these factors were at least potentially relevant and were part of the case (even if the arbs ultimately decided the testimony was irrelevant to their decision). And even if it were true that PR motives were part of the reason for calling these witnesses, it still seems entirely justifiable given the win-at-any-cost tactics employed by the Landis team. In any case, if the Landis team had conceded that professional cyclists have rational motive to dope and that testosterone doping is common in the peloton then I would be more inclined to agree with you. But in point of fact both assumptions have been consistently disputed–hence the need for witnesses to establish the truth.
If Landis is declared innocent by CAS, it isn’t likely to change my opinion that the evidence indicates he doped. But he’d hardly be the only doper riding in the peloton. I don’t have anything against Landis participating in pro races–it’s the precedent for professional cycling that is worrying.
Larry,
I was merely pointing out that the conclusion that the arbs made their decision based on preconceived ideas does not correspond to the facts. Obviously, there are plenty of smart people in addition to the arbs who are convinced that the empirical evidence presented by the LNDD is indeed overwhelming.
Jean C,
You are correct – Landis did not need to find “loopholes.” the testing proceedures are called into question. The methods applied at LNDD – have been called into question. The ARBS stated that the labs methods are unacceptable…Like it or not – the right to defend yourself is inhibited by the present rules that WADA has in place.
There is no legitimate court that would allow the kinds of testimony that LNDD presented – no normal court would accept that ALL TESTIMONY is not there – that methodology may not be inspected and valued…
Still the only question that remains – what will you think if CAS finds in Landis’s favor?
Morgan –
Anyone who has participated like you have on this site is worthy of an honorary law degree.
Which makes you just as much “at the bottom of all this” as I am!
hee hee hee
Jean C –
When it comes to the Landis case, what we mostly discuss here are the side issues: Lemond, the FFF, the lawyers, wattages going up hills, omerta, EPO and blood doping (of course, Landis was not accused of taking EPO or blood doping). Even the results of the other “B” tests are side issues. What matters for his conviction are the “A” and “B” sample tests for S17. IMHO, those tests do not support a conviction.
I cannot prove to you that Landis did not dope. I personally don’t think he did, but I can’t prove he didn’t. What I can argue is that LNDD didn’t prove he did dope.
I’ll walk you through the evidence if you like.
Larry,
I knew it! – Your calling me an “ilk!” Where will it stop!….Next you al will want to put me in the vicinity! – This is a frame up! And Larry – don’t go around calling me a “bottom!” – Hahahahahah
Larry,
As you pointed it, Landis’ case is unfair for the clean riders because all other facts can not be use for convince Landis… It’s a pity because his hematocrit values are a clear indice of blood doping.
Maybe LNDD did n’t prove his case but no one has proved that Floyd’s sample had no T… and a lot of people looked at that case.
From the beginning to today all extern facts make my case stronger…
@Larry
If you don’t mind then please walk me through the evidence.
Everybody (including myself) has their OPINION on whether Floyd doped his way to victory or not. I’d encourage everybody to go back and read both decisions from last years ARB hearing (majority and minority). Take away all the fluff and chaff that were going on, and IMHO there is only one TRULY relevant person who testified. This came from Dr. Amory, a Professor at the Univ of Washington who USED TO BE USADA’s Go-To-Guy for doping analysis (at least until he VOLUNTEERED to testify that the results from LNDD were utter crap and did NOT show that he cheated!)
For the Majority decision to not even acknowledge his testimony means they were basically saying one of 2 things:
a) Sorry Dr. Amory, you are just plain WRONG as WE the majority of Arbitrators know more about your field of expertise than you do;
or
b) sorry Dr Amory, you must have been lying.
To read his testimony and not at least acknowledge a reasonable doubt, and then go ahead and wreck Floyds career is just plain criminal!
Why on earth would he, a Medical Doctor and a Professor at the Univ of Washington, VOLUNTEER to testify FOR Floyd? (he wasn’t a paid witness, HE came to Floyds team on his own). I’m sure USADA wasn’t very pleased by that turn of events, but they apparently had the Hearing decision already covered. But now it’s in the hands of the CAS (except for the fact that even if they were to find for Floyd, he STILL won’t be able to race IN France as THEY have deemed him guilty no matter WHAT comes of the CAS appeal).
So it seems that if you are accussed of cheating and just take your punishment, you are welcomed back into the fold with no problem (there are many examples to choose from here who are BACK racing again after 2 years or LESS punishment). However, if you DARE to put up a fight and continue to claim you didn’t do it, then your career will pretty much be over.
So while WE all have OUR opinions on this matter, how many of us can claim we know MORE than Dr. Amory? Are we looking for the TRUTH in this matter, or are we just looking to catch a guy “that must have been cheating” because he did so well. Had a miraclous day (which it wasn’t, but thats another rather long discussion). Sounds like a movie to me…the kind where the police have FOUND their man, and no matter what the evidence points to, they will do whatever it takes to make the conviction…so then they can all sleep better at night knowing SOMEBODY has been found guilty of the crime.
I agree that probably only Floyd knows the WHOLE TRUTH here, but the evidence supports that he DIDN’T do what he has been convicted of (using Testosterone). Isn’t that what the hearing SHOULD be looking for, the TRUTH? I am.
The Orange coast magazine article looks like the “real thing” by Martin Dugard, not a preview of it.
http://www.orangecoastmagazine.com/site/pp.asp?c=ahKQL8NTE&b=3854793
It is very powerfully written. IMO. And it took a certain amount of guts to write, particularly when the big L gets invoked.
Even if you don’t agree it is worth a read.
AJ
Great argument: The WADA appointed arbiters supported the WADA accusation therefore the WADA accusation must be true.
Ludwig, that one wins the the bazaar argument of the day award.
Whoops that comment was supposed to be posted on TBV not Rant… either way the article is a good read.
AJ
Jean,
We’ve crossed this bridge before about an athlete having to prove his innocence. Can’t be done. So why ask for him to do such a thing? Because you think there is some sort of corrupted justice being served because his hematocrit levels strike you as unusual? That’s a hard pill to swallow.
But I appreciate your willingness to say that LNDD might not have proven their claim.
Deep down I would have to agree with you, that it is unlikely that Floyd was completely clean. However, I have never found that to be relevant to the case at hand.
Ludwig,
As I read the WADA rules that govern doping cases, along with how the UCI has accepted those rules, any case brought forward will be tried on the direct evidence, meaning the lab results — unless the prosecution is going for the “non-analytical positive”. In that case, most arbitration panels have required a higher standard of proof for the non-analytical positive, that of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
I don’t recall USADA’s lawyers making a non-analytical argument. They started out by saying the science and the test results would prove their case. They knew, going in, that LeMond’s testimony wasn’t going to be considered relevant. Same with Joe Papp’s testimony. If the rules regarding the arbitration are applied as written, what both of them said is irrelevant — and Richard Young knew that just as well as the majority who decided against Landis.
So, if they knew that the testimony wouldn’t be relevant to the decision, and if they didn’t make a non-analytical case, what was the reason for having them testify? The only reason I can think of is to get certain information out into the court of public opinion.
Regarding the “fairness” question. Under a strict interpretation of the rules, Ian Thorpe may well have been found guilty of a doping violation due to his odd test results in 2006. ASADA, to their credit, decided to look into the matter further before pursuing an anti-doping case. When they did, they found that there were other explanations besides doping, and they dropped the matter. So, too, did FINA. Although the outcome may have been different (they may still have recommended prosecuting the case), I’m suggesting that if it was only “a search for truth” that USADA should have done the same. Instead, their review board rubber-stamped prosecuting the case. And, in a very odd turn, the fax message announcing their decision was dated three days before their meeting was supposed to have taken place (no explanation has ever been made for that, to my knowledge).
Interestingly, Dr. John Amory, someone who has served on those review boards (though he didn’t in Landis’ case) said that he would not have recommended pursuing the case against Landis. Amory’s medical specialty involves testosterone and endocrinology. That says to me there is more to Landis’ test results than meets the eye. And Amory noted during his testimony that the results didn’t make sense in terms of how the various metabolites are known to behave. So, the evidence against Landis, in my mind, is at best mixed.
I find it interesting that you would expect me to correct my positions if the truth turned out to be contrary to what I believe, but that in the same situation you wouldn’t. We are all free to form our opinions based on whatever we want. But if you expect me to change based on certain evidence (a/k/a the truth) coming out, then I think it’s fair to expect you would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot.
BannaOj,
It is a good (though disturbing) read. I’d encourage everyone to take the time to look it over.
Hey – Dugard – wrote 5000 words and got his paycheck….did Dugard dope?
Who knows – but let me turn him into a “person” before I stick the knife in him…somehow – it must feels much better…
I just hope that Floyd also reads the “commentary” and realizes who his real friends are…BEING THAT WE CAN NEVER ANSWER THE QUESTION OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE BECAUSE THE RULES DON’T ALLOW US TO FIND OUT! …. and I don’t care how you want to stretch the truth – you can’t blame that on Floyd.
But maybe Mr Dugard’S feelings for Floyd are about as true as an LNDD TEST, Or the rules in Pro cycling!!!
Rant,
You misunderstand me. If for whatever reason evidence emerged that convinced me Landis was falsely accused, I would certainly be apologetic.
Anyways, it would be silly to think that a CAS decision in Landis’ favor means that would establish the “truth” one way or another. Obviously the decision confirming the positve doesn’t seem to have swayed your opinions.
Dugard’s article hinges on the definition of the word “it”… which he never defines.
Ludwig,
My mistake, then. And glad to find that out, too.
No, the first decision didn’t sway my opinion, in part because some of the logic the majority used to reach their conclusions seemed rather contorted.
I think we agree that the “truth” of the matter one way or another will probably not be known. Regardless of what the truth is, there will always be those who doubt it. That’s a sad prospect.
BannaOj,
Oh, no! We’re not going to be hearing a refrain of “It depends on what the meaning of ‘it’ is.” 😀
Rant,
Your thoughts on the Papp/Lemond testimony are interesting. Look, I won’t discount the possibility that the Lemond/Papp testimony was partially meant to persuade the public. But the fact remains that their testimony DID contradict actual arguments made in Landis’ defense and in Landis’ testimony–namely that Landis was morally opposed to doping and that there was no rational motive to inject testosterone. In any case, you can’t blame Young for the testimony being public–the decision to make the case public and the attendant circus was a calculated move on Landis’ part.
Karuna –
To give you my take on the evidence will require a few posts. Please forgive me if some of these posts are too simple, telling you things that you (and everybody else) already know, while other posts are too complex for anyone to reasonably understand. In these posts, I’ll err on the side of being simple. I expect that others will point out when I’ve been TOO simple, and glossed over a point of some importance.
I’m happy to answer questions, and I’ll try to state honestly when we’ve gone beyond the things I’ve been able to learn.
Let’s start with a general discussion of the basis for Landis’ adverse analytical finding (AAF).
Landis’ AAF was ultimately based on USADA’s assertion that Landis doped with “exogenous” testosterone – testosterone produced outside of the body. Testosterone is naturally produced by the human body — this “natural” testosterone is sometimes called “endogenous” testosterone. The Landis case is based on the alleged presence in Landis’ system of exogenous testosterone: from a cream, or an injection, or some other outside source.
In order to test for the presence of exogenous testosterone in an athlete’s system, the labs have to come up with a way to tell the difference between endogenous testosterone and exogenous testosterone. This is a difficult thing to do! Exogenous testosterone and endogenous testosterone are chemically identical: they’ve each got the same number of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.
To understand the difference (in theory, at least) between exogenous and endogenous testosterone, you have to reach back to your days in school, when you studied the structure of the atom. If you remember, the primary components of the atom are electrons, protons and neutrons. Nearly all carbon atoms have 12 neutrons, but a few have 13 neutrons (and a very, very small number will have 14 neutrons). The theory behind the doping test for exogenous testosterone is that ON AVERAGE there will be fewer carbon atoms with 13 neutrons in the molecules of exogenous testosterone than there will be in the atoms that make up endogenous testosterone.
For the moment at least, I won’t question the validity of the theory underlying this test. But I DO ask you to pause and consider how precise the test needs to be! An AAF can be based on a shortfall of a few neutrons per thousand carbon atoms. An error of less than 1% in the atomic count could cause a false AAF.
If you forget about Landis for the moment, it is remarkable that we can perform this kind of testing at all. The science behind these tests is very impressive. But my point here is that the test is sophisticated and sensitive. The test is measuring something very small and subtle, a small difference in the subatomic structure of a small percentage of testosterone molecules as compared to what we would expect if all of these molecules were produced endogenously. We HAVE to demand that a test like this be performed exactly, in strict accordance with all of the rules.
While you read and digest this first post, I’ll start working on post no. 2.
Ludwig,
I certainly don’t blame Young for the hearing being open to the public. That was Landis’ decision. And it did illuminate us all about how the whole anti-doping hearing process works, even if what we all saw was ugly. I do question why Young called certain witnesses, when (given his experience both as an attorney and as a AAA arbitrator) he should have known their testimony wouldn’t be considered by the panel.
LeMond’s testimony about what Floyd may have admitted to him ultimately boils down to who you believe — LeMond or Landis. It’s a he-said/he-said situation, and unless a tape of the call exists, only two people know what really was said. (Of course, I suspect that every one of us has been guilty of hearing what we wanted to hear at one point or another, so whether we can trust either person’s memory of events is a debatable point.) Both LeMond and Papp contradicted the Landis arguments. If they didn’t, I’d really question how good a lawyer Richard Young is. Whatever you think about his motives, you have to give him credit as a tenacious advocate for his employers.
Jean C wrote two things I would like to address.
1. Nothing the USADA did even remotely compares to the shoddy ethics of the smear campaign waged by the Landis team; from positing absurd conspiracy theories (popular both here and at TBV, even if you and TBV act as if you are above such theories while your readers continue to cling to them) to suggesting that the case was part of some vendetta against Lance Armstrong. In the end, the actual Landis defense had little in common with the propaganda campaign as typified by Baker’s slideshow. Every step of the way, Landis has not only held firm to the omerta line, he has actively sought to misinform the public about both the doping problem in sport and the circumstances of his own case.
To be quite clear: the smear campaign has been lopsidedly against Landis, and nothing he can do or has done even begins to approach the impact this has had on him. We will never know what might have happened had the proper ethical protocols been followed by LNDD, ASO, the UCI, WADA and USADA when it came to announcements and public statements. The shoddy ethics began the moment McQuaid opened his mouth, and there are few shining lights to be honored in the entire chain of events.
Which absurd consipiracy theories were posted here or on TBV that were not shot down by rational consideration? I would hope you would admit that there aren’t many completely irrational people posting either here or at TBV, or we made need to re-calibrate what “rational” is.
I suspect most people are unfamiliar with some of the litigation tactics that have been used by USADA. This most visible are the outright lies and misrepresentations that were made in the pre-hearing brief, and throughout the discovery process. Those conscious, considered lies, made in the course of the legal process, are far more damning to some people than any overly broad rhetoric used in public debate. It would be fair to note that the tenor of the “Landis is a dope doper” jokes and slams began about 30 minutes after the news leaked, and has continued pretty much unabated in the year and a half since. The proper thing for him to do, if innocent, was what?
2.
I do think that Floyd has weaken his case by his statement against anitidoping instances and the “dishonest” FFF , encouraging them to fight stronger that case than ever!
I think we have a complete counterargument to this with Justin Gatlin, who was quiet and completely cooperative. And he’s been hauled across the keel pretty much the same way by USADA. The single most revealing part of that was USADA’s argument that Gatlin should not be given any credit for wearing a wire while talking with Graham, or being cooperative, because it didn’t lead to any more cases for USADA to pursue. That’s not ethical. That is mean and vindictive.
The only “correct” thing for an accused athlete to do, as far as I can interpret the cases before us, is to shut up and take the suspension or life ban and just go away.
TBV
Just in case I may have been too vague about Mr Dugard – The man is a snake!
A clever snake – but more importantly – I ask myself “why such an article” with subtle “innuendo” is put in print and circulation mere days before the CAS hearing?
Some feel that Mr Dugard is ambivalent about his “stance” where the Landis case is concerned…It may now be safely assumed that Mr Dugard feels and has always felt that Landis was a doper. Integrity is not his strong point.
Mr Dugard is a snake – because he works at “presenting himself” as someone with an ambivalent stance or conflict in his thinking…As I read his “personality” presentation of Mr Landis – one can only marvel at the amount of time duplicity can be enacted…
I am certain that even a SNAKE would like to see itself as being “unbiased” and capable of looking at a situation with some clear sight – But Dugard waited till the last moment to bite his victim…with the hope that his “commentary” will be most effective.
Mr Dugard – “Thank you for clearing up the question” of where you stand. I can’t say that I find your presentation having much moral or ethical backbone!
Karuna –
Let’s add a part 2 to the discussion of my take on the evidence. In part 1, I marvelled at the ability of the scientists to determine the absence of a few neutrons in a few carbon atoms that spell the difference between exogenous and endogenous testosterone. The question is, how do they do that?
There are a few machines involved in the process. The first of these machines is called a gas chromatography machine (GC). We’ll have to discuss the GC in some depth to understand the evidence in the Landis case. For the moment, we can understand the GC as a machine that can separate out chemicals found in a mixture like urine. Let’s say that we have a mixture of five chemicals. We might inject the mixture in the GC, and if all goes well, the GC will spit out a “blob” (or “peak”) of each of the five chemicals, one chemical at a time. You can see a simplified picture of how this works at http://www.unsolvedmysteries.oregonstate.edu/GCMS_05.shtml.
Unfortunately, urine has a lot more than five chemicals in it. So, you could not expect to inject urine into a GC, and have the GC separately spit out a peak for each chemical in the urine. If you injected urine into a GC, you’d end up with a lot of “interferences”: you’d end up with more than one chemical in each peak, or you’d end up with peaks joined together so that you could not tell where the first peak ended and the second peak began. To make the GC work with urine, you have to simplify the urine by removing as much stuff as possible from the urine that you don’t want to measure.
The process of removing stuff from an athlete’s urine sample is referred to generally as “sample preparation”. It is a complicated and time-consuming process — the sample preparation for the exogenous testosterone test on the Landis urine samples took about a full day (if I remember the testimony correctly from the arbitration). This process is CRITICAL to the ability of the test to do what it is supposed to do. Unless the sample preparation does what it is supposed to do — simplify the mixture of chemicals in the urine by removing stuff we’re not interested in measuring for the test — the GC may not be able to separate the chemicals in the urine into separate peaks, and the resulting interferences may prevent the lab from making accurate measurements.
IMHO, sample preparation has received the least amount of attention of any important aspect of the testing done in the Landis case. This is in part because the LNDD’s sample preparation techniques are a “black box” — we don’t know very much about what they did. I’ve seen no analysis of the LNDD sample preparation techniques, and no comparison of how LNDD did its sample preparation as compared to other WADA labs.
But there is reason to suspect that there may have been a problem with the LNDD’s sample preparation. What follows is my own analysis, so please take it with a grain of salt. I’m not a chemist, I’m not even a scientist. But consider:
As I’m sure you know, each athlete’s urine is divided into two samples for testing: an “A” sample and a “B” sample. Absent tampering, these two samples will be chemically identical. The sample preparation of the “A” and “B” sample is also supposed to be identical. So after sample preparation, the “A” and “B” samples should look the same. Right?
Well, in the Landis case, they do not look the same. A picture of the Landis “A” sample after preparation can be seen at http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Doping_Case_Documents8/USADA_168.pdf. A picture of the Landis “B” sample after preparation can be seen at http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Doping_Case_Documents8/USADA_348.pdf. I invite you to compare these pictures. The pictures have similarities, but they’re not the same! Note particularly that there are more large peaks showing in the “B” sample compared to the “A” sample. By my count, there are twice as many peaks above 1 million in abundance in the “B” sample than in the “A” sample. Note also that the “A” sample shows a relatively clean and simple picture around the 10 and 11 second point; in comparison, the “B” sample at the 10 and 11 second point is very messy.
(While you have these pictures open, please notice that the relative peak heights are not the same in the “A” and “B” sample pictures. Notice, for example, that the peak for 5a Androstane 3a 17b diol diAC is about twice as tall in the “B” sample as in the “A” sample. Hopefully, I’ll have a chance to comment on the meaning of this difference in a later post, but for now, all I want you to do is to notice that there are differences between the pictures for the “A” and “B” samples.)
What does this mean? The conclusion I reach as a non-scientist is that there was more “stuff” in the “B” sample after sample preparation than there was in the “A” sample. More “stuff” in the sample means that there are more possibilities for interferences, and a greater likelihood of error. It also casts suspicion on the LNDD’s sample preparation procedures. If the LNDD correctly performed its sample preparation procedures on the “A” and “B” samples, the prepared samples should look the same in the two pictures. They do not look the same.
Of course, there IS a second possibility: perhaps the samples WERE prepared identically, but there was something wrong with the way LNDD took each “picture”. We’ll explore this possibility in part 3.
TBV,
In your last post, Ludwig wrote the first part.
For the 2nd point, the FFF is seen as a fraud in foreign country like here in France. Stating that Floyd needed money to prove his innocence can only be done by an innocent. In case of condemnation Floyd would have been sued! This kind of rules are done to avoid the naive people to be abused by dishonnest persons.
No warning about the state of doping in pro sport and cycling can be seen as a willing to delude people.
That point has been very important for most people. It’s one of 2 main reasons why Floyd isn’t welcome in peloton now.
From http://www.orangecoastmagazine.com/site/pp.asp?c=ahKQL8NTE&b=3854793
I am not sure to good understand… Is he saying that Floyd said to him “Lance doped” ?
Thanks for the future explanation.
Larry
Thank you very, very much for your posts.
After I posted my question I realized that I probably were asking you for a lot of work.
So I am very grateful that you are willing to do this.
I find it very, very interesting. I am also not an scientist although I worked in labs for a number of years.
For now I agree that it is very strange that the preparation method is not known by anybody. Especially because the preparation is THE MOST important part of the procedure. The GC just measures what it is being fed.
I don’t understand how they get away with that. Before a method is seen as scientific you need to publish it and give your fellow scientists the chance to look at it and try it themselves.
Lots of questions come to my mind and I get very tempted to ask a scientist (expert in that field) I know an opinion about these images of the A and B sample to get a better understanding if and how the differences are significant.
For now I am very much looking forward to your next post.
Jean,
You don’t give yourself credit for how well you understand English. You’re correct. That’s exactly what Martin Dugard is saying. The real question is whether Dugard reported that comment correctly and whether he understood Floyd correctly. If his take is an accurate reflection of their conversation, the comment speaks for itself.
I posted this over at TBV but it seems applicable here, as well.
Why does Marty insist on a gossip style of writing so much these days? He dishes on his friends, Bonnie Ford, Lance, Floyd like he is some modern day Truman Capote, except Capote was also a good writer.
He takes on the persona of an insider with insider knowledge and just when we think we are going to get a journalistic scoop from him, he swerves us instead, choosing to go for a cheap pop instead of presenting a well developed, cohesive and convincing argument.
That style requires the reader to trust him because there is no foundation to support his conclusion. but, why should we trust him, because he says what many hope to, want to or even live to hear???
Marty has popped off against some pretty honorable people in the past and he has ended up subsequently retracting some of those “truths”.
Give me some meat to chew on and I’ll go for it. Otherwise, Marty, to me, is just another disillusioned bitter guy with an opinion. How the once great have fallen and I’m not talking about Lance or Floyd.
Karuna –
For clarification, I don’t necessarily find it strange that we don’t know more about the way LNDD did its sample preparation. Maybe there are scientists out there who DO have a detailed understanding of the LNDD sample preparation procedures. Since I’m not a scientist, I depend a great deal on analyses performed by others. It may simply be that sample preparation is something that has not been analyzed yet.
You also raise the question of why it is that we don’t know more about LNDD’s procedures. That’s a legal question, tied into the WADA rules. For the moment, I want to ignore these kinds of questions, and just focus on the evidence that we DO have. That’s a big enough job!
Thanks for your interest and the nice things you wrote.
Larry
It’s absoutely fine that you keep to the evidence.
I actually didn’t mean to make the question sound like they needed an answer right away. It are thoughts that came up. I’ll be more clear about that next time.
🙂
Thanks Rant,
I did think I had missed / or misunderstood the general context which could be cynical, ironic, and so.
Not easy to understand the real author’s feeling.
Jean C,
The author of this story – “presents himself” a “friend of Landis” – he gives the impression that he has some “inside” knowledge” that comes from actions that – he says – has taken place…
The problem is then – that THIS is nothing more then a “he said she said” situation. What makes it really a rotten piece of work – is that the author has presented himself as personally not “knowing” whether Landis is guilty or not – BUT THEN CLAIMS that Landis made certain statements – statements that the author “claims Landis made…
If you understand that this is nothing but a “he said she said” situation – what else makes this such an effrontery is that “he waited until the last minute to do a “hatchet job” – in the guise of being a “friend,” only days before the CAS begins on the Landis case!
Larry –
Thanks for breaking it down for us – It is a very comfortable “read” AND at least one can hope that people will “look at the facts” rather then waste time arguing and trying to “justify” their personal opinions or biases.
CORRECTION:
In my last comment I wrote —-“BUT THEN CLAIMS that Landis made certain statements – statements that the author “claims Landis made”¦”
IT SHOULD BE:
“BUT THEN that Landis made certain statements – statements that the author “INSINUATING Landis MAKING THESE STATEMENTS SOMEHOW CAUSES HIM TO FIND HIM GUILTY”
If I understand correctly, Martin Dugard is like David Walsh… Maybe he is just realising what was the reality of doping.
A positive note, on Ventoux a lot of people have seen a reborn cycling on Ventoux…We have to hope it will stay like that.
Karuna –
This is my third post in response to your request for my take on the evidence. In my first post, I talked about how the test for exogenous testosterone looks at the number of carbon 13 atoms in testosterone molecules (and I stressed how sensitive and precise this testing needs to be). In my second post, I talked a little bit about the gas chromatography machines (GC) and about the importance of sample preparation, and I questioned whether the evident differences we can see in the graphs of Landis'”A” and “B” samples reflect a problem with LNDD’s sample preparation. But I also had to acknowledge that the problem might not be with the sample preparation, but with the “picture” LNDD took of each of these samples.
Let’s start talking about these pictures.
Remember what I wrote earlier about the GC: its job is to take chemicals found in a mixture like urine, and spit out each chemical, one at a time, in separate peaks. Ideally, we want each peak to emerge separately, so that there is no interference between peaks, and of course we want each peak to contain just a single chemical.
In order to get a “picture” of each peak, the lab can hook up the GC machine to a second machine to take the picture. These pictures appear in the form of graphs, like the ones I referred to in my second post, and these graphs are called chromatograms. For the Landis testing, LNDD hooked up the GC to two different machines to produce the required chromatograms. The first machine was a mass spectrometer (MS) and the second machine was an isotope ratio mass spectrometer (IRMS). These two machines produce different kinds of chromatograms. The graphs referred to in my second post (such as http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Doping_Case_Documents8/USADA_348.pdf) are examples of MS chromatograms. An example of an IRMS chromatogram can be seen at http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Doping_Case_Documents8/USADA_349.pdf.
Why would the lab need to produce two different kinds of chromatograms? The MS chromatogram is used to identify the chemical in each peak that emerges from the GC. So, with a MS chromatogram, we can tell that one peak is a testosterone by-product, while another peak may consist of alcohol from the wine I drank last night, while other peaks are made up of other waste products. However, the MS chromatogram cannot tell us anything about the atomic make-up of the molecules in each peak. It cannot do the carbon 13 analysis we need to test for exogenous testosterone.
The IRMS chromatogram provides us with the ability to look inside of the atoms that make up each molecule in a GC peak. It is an amazing machine, and hopefully we’ll have the chance to discuss how it works in a later post. For the moment, we’ll just say that the IRMS chromatogram does the carbon 13 analysis that we need to perform in order to show (in theory, at least) that some of the testosterone in an athlete’s system is exogenous testosterone. But the IRMS chromatogram cannot identify the chemical in each peak. It can tell us something about the carbon 13 make-up of the atoms in the chemical, but it cannot identify the chemical.
So in order to run the tests for exogenous testosterone, the labs need to produce both an MS chromatogram and an IRMS chromatogram. The MS chromatogram identifies the chemical in each peak, and the IRMS chromatogram does the carbon 13 analysis. All we have to do is to put the two chromatograms together. That should be easy to do, right?
Well, it’s not as easy as it sounds.
Let’s consider the analogy of a school. At the beginning of each school year, the people who run the school have to measure the height of each student. So the students get in a line, and they first go to a table where one of the teachers writes down the student’s name: “Student No. 1, John Doe. Student No. 2, Jane Brown.” And so forth until all of the students are written down on the list. When that’s done, the students get in a different line, where a different teacher measures each student and calls out the height to the first teacher. “58 inches! 61 inches!” and so forth. The first teacher writes down the height of each student in the order measured: “Student No. 1, 58 inches, Student No. 2, 61 inches.” It’s a fine procedure, and it should accurately record the height of each student …
… assuming, of course, that the students line up the same way both times. Of course, the students may NOT line up the same way. They may line up in a different order the second time around. Or some of the students might give their names to the first teacher, get bored and leave without getting measured. Other students may arrive late, never get their names entered on the list, and line up to get measured anyway.
We have the same issue with the MS and IRMS chromatograms. The lab identifies each peak by using the MS chromatogram, and then measures the peak for carbon 13 content in the IRMS chromatogram. All should be fine, so long as the lab is careful to “line up” the chemical peaks in the same way for both chromatograms.
LNDD did NOT use due care in lining up the chemical peaks for the MS and the IRMS chromatograms. For me at least, this is probably the most fundamental problem with the evidence in the Landis case.
To explain the problem with how LNDD lined up the chemical peaks, I need to explain a bit further how a GC machine works. A GC works by heating the sample until it turns into a gas, and then running the gas through a long thin tube called a “column”. The column is coated with a substance that slows the passage of the molecules in the sample as the molecules pass through the column. However, the column coating slows the passage of some kinds of molecules more than others. The molecules that are slowed the least by the column coating emerge first from the GC, and the molecules that are slowed the most by the column coating emerge last. This is how the GC is able to separate the molecules in a mixture into separate peaks. And one of the nice things about the GC is that it can be fitted with different kinds of columns, containing different coatings, designed to separate different mixes of chemicals in different ways.
In order to get the chemicals in a mixture to line up the same way for the MS chromatogram and the IRMS chromatogram, it is essential that the lab use the same GC column for the MS and the IRMS portions of the test. Evidently, LNDD did not do this. If you look at http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Doping_Case_Documents8/USADA_124.pdf and http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Doping_Case_Documents8/USADA_303.pdf, you’ll see that for the MS portion of the test, the LNDD used an Agilent 19091s-433 column. If you look at http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Doping_Case_Documents8/USADA_153.pdf and http://ia331327.us.archive.org/1/items/Floyd_Landis_2006_Doping_Case_Documents8/USADA_329.pdf, you’ll see that LNDD used a DB17-MS JW Scien 122.4732 column for the IRMS tests. TBV and others have done the research to show that these are very different columns, that can be expected to produce peaks that will emerge from the GC machine at different times.
Another factor in the line-up of chemical peaks from a GC machine is the “temperature ramp” used by the GC. As I explained above, the GC functions by heating the sample so that it turns into a gas. The higher the temperature used in the GC (and the faster this temperature is reached), the faster the gas will travel through the GC column. If the lab lowers the GC temperature (and takes more time to reach peak temperature), this will slow the passage of the gas through the GC column, and this will generally increase the separation of peaks. Again, it is important to use the same temperature ramp in the MS and IRMS portions of the exogenous testosterone test, so that the chemical peaks will line up the same way in both tests. Again, LNDD did not do this. LNDD used a “hotter” temperature ramp for the IRMS portion of the test. The temperature ramps for these tests are shown on the same sites listed above.
To my mind, LNDD’s failure to maintain the same GC conditions for its MS and IRMS testing is the most serious deficiency in LNDD’s evidence against Landis. The test used for exogenous testosterone relies on the ability of the lab to tie the MS chromatogram results to the IRMS chromatogram results. LNDD broke this tie when it changed the GC conditions from test to test. Going back to the analogy of the school measuring the height of its students, it is as if the school ignored the order of the students being measured, or worse, that the school carelessly mixed up the order of the students in the two lines. With this mix-up, LNDD cannot say in the Landis case with any assurance that it measured what it was required to measure.
IMHO.
The article of Dugard seems to me like a pretty misleading piece.
He seems to answer the question “˜did he do it’ (Landis) AS IF he presents anything other than his personal opinion.
He seems to give his personal opinion more weight by claiming that Landis and he were friends, on a first name basis. On the basis that Landis supposedly told Dugard that Armstrong doped. It gets juicy from it.
So?
It is still just his personal opinion.
Knowing someone doesn’t mean that you with certainty can say “˜yes’ or “˜no’.
Even after a full psychological evaluation you can’t get any further than an “˜it is likely’.
I don’t have a clue why Dugard wrote it like this. There are a lot of other ways to voice his meetings with Landis and/or voice his opinion. But it has the appearance of “˜knowing something’. Which is very misleading.
From how I read it he does not bring anything other than his point of reference which is biased like everyone’s.
Maybe this sentence is true for him too?
There was always this feeling around those two that greatness or utter lunacy was at work. It seemed that, for them, the ends always justified the means.
Larry,
Sorry your comment got stuck in limbo for a bit. Excellent posts, by the way.
Karuna,
The one important thing to note about Dugard’s commentary article – I ask myself – why does it “just happen” to come out mere days before the CAS hearing begins?
Your observation concerning the “article” is spot on – IT WORKS AT THE “APPEARANCE” of “knowing something” – Having “surfed around” I have read different things about this “writer” – he is supposedly a “professional” journalist. If this is the truth – then my personal opinion is that the “professional journalist” just did a HATCHET JOB on his subject!
You would also gain from noticing that about midway through – he drags Lance Armstrong into the mix…Now – if one looks at this article – one has to ask why he would try to reduce “two distinctive” characters and tries to present them in the same piece that he starts out with focusing on Floyd Landis?
My only conclusion has to be is that he is using Armstrong’s “name recognition” to ensure that the “article” is picked up by other media…Because in reality – WHAT does the question of claiming that Lance Armstrong doped or not – have to do with the Landis case? In my opinion – Nothing.
Perhaps Dugard is merely being a “sloppy journalist” – I would say that in my opinion – I seriously doubt this. I think Dugard accomplished EXACTLY what he wanted – that is to stick a knife in someone’s back who he presents as his friend- using “their supposed” FRIENDSHIP as the means to do it.
I believe – Dugard did this completely on purpose – like Mark Anthony did with Julius Caesar – “Et tu Brute?” On the eve of the Ides of March!
Thanks to Larry for the excellent posts and translating a complicated subject into English. Having read the the arbitration transcipts and having a fairly good understanding of the science, I concluded that the LNDD grossly failed in their obligation to perform good science in order to establish an AAF (adverse analytic finding) That said, most people inclined to believe that Landis doped (because all top cyclists dope and if WADA says its true, it must be…right??—PLEASE!!!!) should read this and understand that just because he is accused, doesn’t mean he did it. The whole thing never made sense from day one (what was the point of doping at stage 17?) and with some bright light shined onto the process, everything looks dirty and sloppy. This piece explains fairly well why Landis should be exonerated.
As cycling and sports move forward on the doping questions, one thing needs to be emminently clear and transparent. That is this…all methods to determine the presence of a banned substance MUST be verified by the “scientific community” and not just WADA employees as being reproducible and accurate in determining the presence/absence of said substance. Until experimental methods are “vetted” in the outside world, you can not use them to potentially destroy a career.
The calibration methods and controls need to be written in stone and deviation from these MUST invalidate the result. The LNDD actions and everything that has stemmed from it is exactly the justification for this. Obviously, what constitutes the “scientific community” is a question, but one that should be relatively easily answered.
I agree with Larry and Michael and others that say that if UCI wants to ban use of certain substances because it either gives the user an unfair advantage OR essentially forces others to the use the substance to remain on equal ground competitively, than they have that right to do so. Once that list is made however, the process of determining who doped and who did not needs to be transparent (methods/quality control etc made public) and the same standards the athletes are held to need to be applied to the testing authorities/labs…i.e. zero tolerance for mistakes.
Re: Dugard, we are to believe that Landis told Dugard that Lance doped, with no details pursued or offered; and that Dugard didn’t pursue the same questions about Landis before agreeing to work on the book proposal with him?
There are a number of things that don’t compute.
TBV
Ange –
That’s a terrific post, and thanks for the nice words.
One thing I’m learning from my research is that cyclists do strange things, and that you cannot rule out the possibility that cyclists WILL do things that make no sense in hindsight. I just finished reading “Put Me Back On My Bike”, a biography of Tom Simpson. For those who do not know, Simpson was a top rider during the 1960s, and he died during a TdF climb of Mount Ventoux in 1967. One of the factors that led to his death was that he drank alcohol on the climb, thinking (as apparently many riders did) that this was performance enhancing.
There’s no proof that testosterone treatments taken during the course of a race could possibly help a rider compete in the race. That doesn’t mean that cyclists don’t use testosterone.
But ange, I think you nailed it in the last paragraph of your post. Yes, clean sport is a worthy goal, and we should pursue it for a number of good reasons. THEN we should insist on the best possible science under the circumstances to test for doping, and if the tests aren’t done properly, we should throw out the results.
I personally think that the evidence against Landis is not even CLOSE to being good enough. I’ll try to post more takes on the evidence over this weekend, as we get closer to the Landis CAS hearing.
Morgan said: “Just in case I may have been too vague about Mr Dugard – The man is a snake!”
Oh like I’m supposed to just lie here and take that ?
That “Doubting Floyd” article was LOW, even to us belly crawlers.
Even *if* what he said Floyd said was actually said, it’s … well hearsay. Jurors are hereby ordered to disregard.
Dear Snake,
Let me apologize for my poor choice of bile – I would think that it was obvious that I never intended any reference to you – or any belly crawlers – in fact may I apologize to all slithering and side winding critters – I have no excuse but that us morning jaegers do have a temper but alas our venom is merely bile. Personally, I like snakes.