Landis Loses at CAS

by Rant on June 30, 2008 · 6 comments

in Doping in Sports, Floyd Landis, Tour de France

In a highly antipicated decision, the Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed Floyd Landis’ appeal of his suspension related to a positive drug screening test at the 2006 Tour de France. Landis, as you may recall, was accused of using artificial testosterone after an anti-doping lab in France reported anomalous findings for a sample Landis provided after his epic ride on Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour.

In a press release issued at 5 p.m. Swiss time, the CAS panel said:

“The CAS Panel considered all arguments and evidence submitted by the parties throughout the proceedings and found that the Laboratoire National de Depistage du Dopage (LNDD), which is the laboratory which performed the analyses of Floyd Landis’ urine sample provided after stage 17 of the Tour de France 2006, did not violate the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL).”

“In particular, the panel found that:

1. The LNDD is a WADA-accredited laboratory which benefits from the presumption that it conducted sample analysisin accordance with international laboratory standards.

2. The athlete has not rebutted this presumption by showing that a departure from the International Standard occurred.”

“The Panel concluded that the presence of exogenous testosterone or its precursors or metabolites in Floyd Landis’ sample proves that he violated the anti-doping rules of the International Cycling Union.”

In addition, the panel has ordered Landis to pay $100,000 to USADA to help defray their legal costs. The full award is available here.

More coverage will appear here throughout the day, as this story develops.

Post to Twitter

bitch slap me back! June 30, 2008 at 9:46 am

This from the NY times:

The CAS panel, noting the harsh nature of much of the Landis testimony, agreed with USADA’s contention that Landis’ witnesses “crossed the line, acting for the most part as advocates for the Appelant’s cause, and not as scientists objectively assisting the Panel in the search for truth.”

This is interesting. You can present a vigorous defense but not too vigorous? My following the case suggested USADA witnesses were much more “circle the wagons” with strong defense of the LNDD and their process. Would not a person stating that LNDD was in the wrong be naturally in the camp that Landis was innocent? If I am called to the stand to rebut key scientific data that I disagree with (and is the key evidence against a person) then how could I not respond as an advocate for overturning the decision? I don’t get it.

R Wharton June 30, 2008 at 9:51 am

Yeah, something is reallly, really rotten here. Hamilton’s case went 3-0 against him, as well. I think there IS ground for federal action, but it’s still sad, it’s still awfully expensive, and it still means Landis will be handicapped with this the rest of his life and career.

Floyd, I am so sorry that this happened. I hope Dr. Baker continues to assist you in your defense.

LuckyLab June 30, 2008 at 10:24 am

The monetary judgment disturbs me. Floyd was found guilty – okay, but to punish the accused for going through the appeal process he is entitled to by rulecasts a pall over the system and sets a precedent that further tips the balance against the accused in all doping cases.

Larry June 30, 2008 at 10:36 am

Putting it simply. Floyd won on the road. In both arbitrations, he won on the facts, on the law and on the arguments made by both sides. Floyd ultimately lost, because the powers that be could not afford the fallout that would have resulted by admitting that he won.

LuckyLab June 30, 2008 at 10:53 am

I didn’t adequately finish my thought earlier.

The proceedings are more like a criminal case not like a lawsuit as the outcome for the accused is banished for a period rather than directed to change behavior, punished monetarily and allowed to carry on with life. This makes the outcome far more tenuous for the accused than the prosecution. I would hope exonerated athletes, mentioned often here, would now be able to get monetary awards from the ADAs but I’m afraid that will never happen.

The game has changed and I’m afraid I could never compete under those conditions in any sport (besides the old, fat and slow thing, I mean).

wadawatch July 1, 2008 at 3:54 am

hi Rant…

I am, on the other hand, stuck on the fact that Floyd spent /- TWO million, while USADA/WADA spent FOUR to SIX million, and they’ve bitchslapped Floyd for this extra Hundred thousand…

Now forgive my own neglected law degree, but why do “Great World Organizations”, who prosecute under their own auto-produced ‘laws’, have to spend twice as much as the ‘poor defendant’ IF…

IF…

Their system is ‘nearly perfect’ (“New and IMPROVED testing!!!” “New Tasting CODE!!!”)

I’ll be working slowly through some very intriguing points at WADAwatch, but work forces me to juggle priorities… here’s an interesting teaser:

CAS started down their Decision, in castigating Young for failure to remember what DE NOVO means… and ended their Decision by deploring Landis’ ‘having hashed over the same old arguments that he’d developed at the AAA hearing’ (my paraphrases)…

And for the life of me, I can’t figure out how CODE 3.2.1 wins over CODE 6.4, 7.1 & 7.2

As I’d said in the Amicus Brief, WADA couldn’t afford to lose this case: that they had to spend >2x what FL did, seems to imply that the ‘system’ … Isn’t.

Legal malpractice on Landis’ attorneys’ part? Or just plain legal case mismanagement? I think Suh ought to be paying back Floyd about… ummm: 100K… doncha think?

ZENmud

Previous post:

Next post: