For better or worse, the CAS will announce its decision in the Floyd Landis case on Monday, at about 11 a.m. Eastern Time/8 a.m. Pacific. I know what I’ll be doing right around the time the announcement comes out — furiously hitting the refresh button on the CAS’ Press Release page, and then jumping over to the page where the decision is published. Or vice versa.
As most readers already know, sports’ high “court” sent out a press release today saying that they would be releasing their opinion on Monday, June 30th. So for those who said the decision would come during June, it will. Just barely. Is there anything we can read into the timing of the announcement? Probably not much, is my guess.
The CAS is, theoretically, independent of WADA, the UCI, the ASO, and USADA, just to name a few of the interested parties in this case. However they came upon the timeline to announce this decision — and I suspect that the end of June timeframe has been a target all along — I don’t know if they really thought or if they really care about other events (like the beginning of a certain Tour) that will be happening next week.
It will certainly be a busy week in the world of legal cases related to cycling. Michael Rasmussen’s case is in the mix, too. Does it seem to anyone else that this kind of rollercoaster flurry of doping-related stories is getting to be a pre-Tour tradition? It’s certainly one that I would rather we do without. But that’s another story.
Will Monday’s announcement be the last word on the Landis case? Unlikely. For a couple of reasons.
First, if Floyd wins, there is the possibility that he might take legal action against various agencies. Somebody, somehow cost him a whole lot the last two years, and payback could be costly for whoever that is. Nothing can ever give him back what’s been taken away. But a large check could at least restore the finances that have been decimated in defending his name and his honor. Even if he loses, there is a chance he would take legal action. I’m not sure, given the recent Gatlin decisions, just how far that could go. But much of that would depend on exactly what kind of legal action was pursued.
Second, if the ADA side wins, WADA has already made clear their desire to stick the bill to Landis for the $1.3 million they’ve spent assisting USADA’s prosecution of the case. They could conceivably go to court to try and seek compensation. That might be a dangerous move, however, as it would likely expose the inner workings of the anti-doping world to scrutiny be a real, honest-to-goodness court. In doing so, the ugly side of how these agencies work could well be exposed in much greater detail than we’ve already seen. It would be a calculated risk taking such action.
A loss in court — in a public court, where the records are open and can be scrutinized by reporters and others — could lay open dirty laundry and other secrets that the ADAs may not want known. Whether WADA would follow through on such threats remains to be seen. Should WADA succeed in forcing Landis to pay their costs, it would have a chilling effect on those who might be accused of doping in the future. From that point forward, no one would contest an anti-doping case, because they’d not only be afraid of the astronomical cost of defense, but they’d also be afraid with being socked with an out-of-this-world bill for the other side’s expenses, too. (And rumor has it, the other side likes to travel first class, if you get my drift.) Better to roll over and take the punishment, rather than almost certain financial ruin.
Now, if Monday’s ruling did turn out to be a Landis victory, that could be a real public relations nightmare for a number of organizations right on the eve of the biggest cycling event of the year. That could draw some unwanted attention to various agencies and they way they do business. That’s the kind of story with legs, and it could carry on into the opening days of the Tour and beyond. On the other hand, if the USADA side were to prevail, it would certainly raise a ruckus for a few days, but the hysteria would probably die down well before Saturday’s Grand Depart. After all, a USADA victory would just be spun in the press as just another doper going down in flames. Not too many reporters are going to dig deep into the CAS’ decision and the reasoning behind it. That’s true, actually, regardless of which way the decision goes.
There is one thing to note about how this whole process works that hasn’t been publicized much. And that’s who gets to review the decision before it gets the final seal of approval. Who gets to pass judgment on the judgment? The CAS Secretary General, one Monsieur Matthieu Reeb. Here is the CAS rule, with emphasis added:
“R59 Award The award shall be rendered by a majority decision, or in the absence of a majority, by the President alone. It shall be written, dated and signed. The award shall state brief reasons. The signature of the President shall suffice. Before the award is signed, it shall be transmitted to the CAS Secretary General who may make rectifications of pure form and may also draw the attention of the Panel to fundamental issues of principle. The Panel may decide to communicate the operative part of the award to the parties, prior to the reasons. The award shall be enforceable from such written communication.”
OK, about that “may also draw attention” part — does that mean he can send the ruling back to the panel if he doesn’t like it? Does that give him veto power over what the panel might do? Imagine in our judicial system, a somewhat analogous situation would be the Attorney General reviewing a Supreme Court decision before deciding whether the Court’s ruling would be allowed to stand. That’s a total shift in the dynamics of checks and balances, or at least, so it seems.
That interesting factoid was pointed out to me by a regular reader. It does make me wonder: Just how much of the time spent in crafting the decision was spent rewriting the decision after M. Reeb’s review?
Whatever happens Monday, it will be far from the last word, I’m afraid. Will the CAS’ pronouncement change anyone’s minds? Among those following the case closely, I doubt it. Among casual observers, who knows? Soon enough, the decision will be here. And soon enough, we’ll all get to chew over what it really means in the grand scheme of things.
Four weeks shy of two years since this whole bloody affair started. At least on Monday we’ll know when Floyd will be able to start racing again. Hopefully sooner, rather than later.
Whatever the outcome. Thanks to Rant (and of course, TBV) for the fantastic coverage. Really enjoyed it guys..
Hey Rant –
So did you find this COMMENT to be comforting? And is it not interesting that the primary news feed for cycling felt comfortable to use such a version statement to “end” their news blurb? —
“After the circus-like atmosphere of the USADA hearing, the CAS arbitration was conducted behind closed doors in March. The arbitrators heard 35 hours of testimony at a New York law office, and have taken more than three months to arrive at a decision.”
—One can say one thing for sure – the Editor of CN knows how to make an ambiguous statement when it wishes.
Perhaps it is just me – I may have “lost my sense” of humor when it comes to jurisprudence – I find very little “funny” going on when “justice” is subverted by the very people who are supposed to be officers of the court.
Perhaps we are “seeing” the new “interpretation” for the old saw – “for the benefit of the athlete’s privacy, etc” being turned into — “After the circus-like atmosphere of the USADA hearing, the CAS arbitration was conducted behind closed doors in March.”
Does the witting imply that CAS feels that the Floyd Landis trial was circus like because its unique interpretation of what a trial should be? Or is it that trials in general are circus like? It begs the question: IS A TRIAL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC not a “true trial” but a circus? How interesting. How convenient! So when the “public” has access – the trial is circus like. I don’t happen to agree with this.
Perhaps I am merely being “thin-skinned” about it all – but I as sure as hell am not willing to “give up” my right to have a “presence” in a “hearing” where the rights of the individual gets to be decided! Are you?
It may be that I’m just out of sync and prefer to have my “news” pure and uneditorialized – but in todays climate of “reinventing” the meaning of “fair play” and “an even playing field” – Just give me the “facts” – I prefer to make up my own mind!
Rant a “ps” –
The CAS Secretary General, one Monsieur Matthieu Reeb – (sarcasm alert!) – may “just be” a simple secretary whos’ job it is to “go over” a legal document before it is released to the public – hey – it could be true…no? But I do happen to note that such a public service official getting a title like “secretary General” – is over the top a bit…we don’t have to worry that there is a “second” line of “Who gets to tell who what to do” who may just have the authority to “change” parts of a decision that may not be “desired” by the people in control…but then – I know I have a very jaded and suspicious mind…I need to “work on that.”
One Monsieur Matthieu Reeb COULD BE just a hard working law clerk — and one is “questioning” his place and power out of sheer perverseness that is a result of the last two years of “revelations!” – I don’t know why – but I feel like taking a big spit!
Rant,
I can’t help seeing Beer when i see Monsieur Reeb’s name. Maybe it is a good sign. Maybe having him with the final word will take us back in time, back to that fateful night after stage 16 when Floyd had a couple beers and Jack Daniels prior to that sensational stage 17 comeback. Wouldn’t it be great if the only thing that we were doing this morning was anticipating the start of the Tour next Saturday and Floyd going for his third victory. But then again I wouldn’t have learned so much in these past 2 years. Cheers
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that both sides were more or less in agreement about the CAS hearing being closed. I think in large part the circus-like remark stems from the Lemond affair, in particular “the call”, where issues not related to the case dominated the news.
Hey Rant, just got home from a min vacation and look what has happened!! I am just getting caught up here, but I wanted to say, as we all await Floyd’s CAS decision, thanks for all of the hard work and time you have spent in covering this case and others like it. You’re the best!!
str
The doping decisions always come out right before the Tour – it’s become an annual ritual. The sad part is that the regulatory bodies are clearly sitting on the decisions for who-knows-how-long in order to make maximum impact in the media. In this case, I suspect a decision FOR Landis would have been dribbled out on a Friday afternoon in May – a decision announced the Monday before Le Tour is probably bad news for Floyd.
s.
Hi Rant,
Thanks for this one – it addresses some points I’ve been trying to raise lately, and could have just as easily been titled “things that have been on Tom’s mind”.
The thing with the secretary general – this is exactly the back-and-forth sort of thing where political pressure can leak into a process (which I’ve commented on recently), and in this case it almost looks like it is by design. So do you think the secretary general can and does consult with other people when he reviews the decision?
tom
Rant, Tom, no court is immune from political pressure. None.
I have no clue if this CAS panel has seriously considered ruling in favor of Landis. But if they have, I will guarantee you that they’ve themselves discussed the ramifications of such a decision, and I would not be surprised or shocked if they’ve been warned by others what such a decision might bring.
Hey everyone,
Thanks. This site will live on, just so you know. The coverage may change a little, but RYHO is here to stay, just so you know.
Larry,
I don’t doubt what you say in the slightest. What I find interesting is the review of the panel’s decision, or the potential review, by M. Reeb. I’m sure the panel will have discussed many things, including the potential ramifications of their ruling. I would hope, however, that regardless of those ramifications, they would choose to go with what they believe to be correct, rather than what they perceive to be the desired result. That might be asking too much, I’ll admit, but I’m a bit of a dreamer. 😉
Rant, I could imagine the Secretary General saying something along the lines of, “if you’re going to find for Landis, make DAMN sure you’ve got your facts right … because all hell is going to break loose.”
Larry,
I can see that. I do hope they get their facts straight. I’d hate to see another mish-mash of a decision like the AAA panel released.
But just what are the facts? As I see it, and admittedly I am not an expert on either the scientific or legal ramifications of the case, both the science and law have been fairly well dissected on various online sites (TBV, here, etc.) and no consensus has been reached regarding the scientific validity of the tests as conducted by LNDD. I was hoping that someone would step forward, saying “I do this type of testing and find that . . .” and back up one side or the other. Instead, we have had various people come up with various things and you kind of take your pick, depending on how you feel.
It could be that those people with the necessary expertise all work in the WADA sphere on influence, and thus are restrained from testifying in favor of an athlete. And it is possible that someone with the necessary expertise and not involved with WADA may simply not be aware of our discussions online. If you count up the number of people who post comments here and at TBV on any sort of regular or semi-regular basis, it is a very small number, especially considering we have people from at least 2 continents reading and posting.
I have skimmed through the post-hearing briefs which are linked to from TBV. Each taken alone and at face value seems to present a convincing case. More detailed reading, and perhaps access to all the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing might either support one side, or undermine the other, but ultimately I suspect it will come down to how believable the panel feels various witnesses are, coupled with the political ramifications.
In short, I doubt we will get a decision which we here can look at and say “Well, there is no doubt they got it right.” Whether all hell will break loose, I don’t know, but I bet the decision will be praised and condemned and dissected and still we will have no conclusive answer.
Is this any way to run a business?
William,
I don’t think so.