What Will The Morrow Bring?

As I write this, it’s probably only hours before the lab report that Floyd Landis has promised to release will show up on his web site. Three hundred-odd pages of lab report. I can’t imagine what could be in the report of his results that would take up so much space and kill so many trees. But that’s what it is, and we shall see what it says.

[Update: The information is now out there. You can find it at Trust But Verify or at FloydLandis.com. TBV also has the Jacobs ADRB filing and Arnie Baker’s Powerpoint presentation.]

I’m guessing that along with the data, and whatever calculations the lab derived from the data, there’s going to be a lot of dull, tedious descriptions of lab procedure and how each test was conducted. At least, there ought to be so that others can verify what procedures were followed, and whether they were followed appropriately.

We’ve seen a preview, courtesy of one Mr. Floyd (the Ferret) Landis. And the information that was gleaned from those few pages leaves me thinking that it will do quite well in bolstering his case, but I doubt that it’s a slam-dunk (of course, if George Tenet said so it would be a different matter, now wouldn’t it?).

Prognostication, however, isn’t my strong suit. I also predicted that this would be a relatively quiet period as we waited for the arbitration hearing. And then we had the appearance of the mysterious Ferret documents, which certainly piqued my interest and a whole lot of others. Quite an ingenious way of testing the waters that Floyd and company came up with.

So I’m looking forward to wading through the documents and trying to glean pertinent data and information from what’s there. Somewhere within this report is a huge hunk of truth, and it’s going to be set free. It may not be all cut-and-dried to prove Floyd’s innocence, but it sure could go a long way.

As I understand, the document will be in French. So, hopefully, a few good French-speakers out there will help in deciphering the “LNDD Code.” Makes me wish I’d paid more attention, and that I’d remembered more, from French class in the fifth form at Western Road School in Lewes, East Sussex many years ago. Beautiful town, beautiful countryside. Some of the local kids weren’t too keen on a half-Brit, half-Yank from America in their midst, however. But then again, some of them didn’t like kids from the next town over, either.

Moving on. A post over at Endless Cycle got me stirred up a bit this morning, but I haven’t had time to write my thoughts down until now. Peloton Jim notes:

Pat McQuaid found a camera and microphone to say he would block any attempt for any Operation Puerto rider to ride next year.

The thing that bugs me about this is that there seems to be a smattering of double-jeopardy to this. Perhaps, since Pat McQuaid shooting off his mouth again drives me almost as mad as if it were Dick Pound spewing forth, it just seems that way.

But consider this: For the 57 (and possibly all 58 if Ullrich gets cleared) riders who’ve been cleared by their national federations to begin competition again, it seems like the UCI is just trying to find a court that will give them the result they want. I assume that the national federations have looked carefully at the evidence and found it lacking in terms of pressing anti-doping charges against these individuals. (Yeah, yeah, I know: When you assume …) So this just sounds vindictive.

Now, I know that the UCI has the right to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and all. I just don’t happen to think it’s appropriate. Right now, all the information I’ve seen out there on Operation Puerto makes it sound like the only solid case is the one against Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes, who’s accused of supplying the goods.

And by the way, whatever happened to all those unnamed athletes from other sports who were supposed to be implicated? Who were they and why haven’t we heard about them up to now? Could it be that other sports federations respect the athletes more and have kept matters private until they are resolved? Or perhaps these athletes didn’t really exist in the first place.

It seems to me, if the authorities provided clear and convincing evidence so that even a layperson could determine an offense may have been committed and still the federations declined to press the cases, then it would be appropriate to go to the CAS. But if the evidence is so weak to begin with that the federations talk publicly about how weak the evidence is (like, for instance, the Italian federation letting out the info that the strongest evidence against Ivan Basso was a recorded phone call where his name was mentioned in passing), it’s time to let the cases go. Be satisfied with a conviction of Fuentes, as that will shut down at least one source of doping supplies to athletes.

There’s real dopers out there, and the UCI and WADA should focus on improving their methods of catching them. That doesn’t mean eliminating B samples, as Dick Pound would do. It means making sure that the testing system actually works. And that the tests themselves actually work and are truly definitive. And that the testing labs follow proper procedures and protocols.

While we’re at it, a bit of organizational house-cleaning would be good, too. But I’ll leave that discussion to Peloton Jim, because he did a really nice rant about how the cycling world can avoid a worst case scenario today.

For now, I’m just going to wait and see what the morrow brings.