 |
I just finished reading through the CAS panel’s decision in the Floyd Landis case. I’m stunned by what I read. I can’t find a single point that Team Landis scored in the entire hearing, or at least, not a single point of any importance. While the decision gives a background of the issues and what each side said, with startling uniformity, they rejected the contentions of the Landis side.
I know Maurice Suh is a good lawyer. But reading this document makes it look like he’s been well and truly trounced by Richard Young and company. Granted, Young wrote the WADA code, or large chunks of it. I can’t think of a lawyer who would be more familiar with the ins and outs of that code, and more capable of navigating its language in such a way that he would prevail. Were Young to switch to defending athletes in front of CAS panels, I wonder what the results would be. I find it utterly amazing that in the course of the CAS proceedings that Maurice Suh didn’t score at least a few points along the way.
In looking through the original decision from last September, I thought the logic and reasoning at times was very contorted and convoluted. In this new decision, that’s not the case at all. It’s very uniform. Landis’ arguments are uniformly discounted and discarded, and USADA’s are uniformly accepted. With just a couple of instances when the panel threw Landis a bone. The most major of these, to my eyes, is that they did not agree with USADA’s contention that Floyd’s suspension should start as of September 20, 2007. A good thing, that, as it would have amounted to a three-year suspension by the time all was said and done (accounting for all the time that Landis has not been able to compete in UCI or USA Cycling events).
It seems the original panel appeared to give more consideration to Team Landis’ arguments than the CAS panel did. Could the case presented to the CAS panel have been so radically different to explain this result? I’m really puzzled by this result. I can’t say it was totally unexpected. At best, I thought that Floyd’s chances were a coin toss. I just never realized that the coin toss was of the variety “Heads I win, tails you lose.”
At least Floyd knows when he can start working as a pro cyclist again. The panel’s document is stunning and breathtaking, to say the least. What I’d like to know, given the way they’ve meted out justice is this: Why did this take two and a half months? The same result could have happened on April 19th with a bit of copy and paste
And so it goes. To move on into a different area, slightly, tonight’s reading raised an interesting question. Given that no test is perfect, nor are those who perform the tests, at some point an innocent athlete will be charged with a doping offense. We can argue if that’s already happened, but that’s beside the point of this question. Someday, it will happen. Reading through the panel’s decision in the Landis case, and noting that the two major cases where the ADAs have lost involved one particular issue (that of the same person working on the A and B samples in the cases of Landaluce and Jenkins), exactly how would a truly innocent person be able to prove his/her innocence in the current system?
The mark of a truly just system — whether we’re talking about the anti-doping system or a court system — is whether or not it affords a way for such a case to reach the proper conclusion — that the person is found either innocent, or in the case of a criminal system, “not guilty.” What evidence could be shown to establish an athlete’s innocence? Remember, the presumption here is guilt and the athlete has to prove his/her innocence. We may not like this aspect of the system, but for now it’s what we’re stuck with.
I’m really at a loss to figure out what a truly innocent person could do to overcome a doping charge. As easily as Landis’ arguments were tossed out by the panel, I wonder what arguments could actually work. I can’t think of anything an innocent person could do. And that concerns me, as it’s a failing of the system that such a case can’t reach the right end.
Food for thought, anyway. Time to call it a night.
Rant, great post. I’ve written a few similar posts today over at TBV.
The opinion is a rout. In tennis, it’s a 6-love match in three sets. In Little League, they would have invoked the mercy rule. In boxing, the referee would have jumped between USADA and Landis to stop the bloodshed. Tiger Woods never won a major by this many strokes.
The opinion is sheer carnage. Reading the opinion, you’d conclude that Landis never called a credible witness or raised an argument worthy of serious thought.
Sure, a lot of us thought that Landis never had a chance … but this? This wasn’t just a defeat. USADA threw a no-hitter. They never had to punt. They took nothing but three point shots, and never missed. Bowled 300. Hit every fairway and holed every approach shot. Perfect 10s from every judge.
What the hell happened?
Here are my best answers, subject to revision as I regain my balance, my perspective and my temper:
1. As we’ve discussed, the system could not let Landis win. Too much was at stake: not just the reputation of the LNDD and USADA, but also the ability of the powers that be to bring the Tour de France back under international anti-doping regulation, and the legitimacy of every doping test to be conducted at this summer’s Olympic Games.
2. Landis’ case was perceived as a challenge to the ADAs that had to be sternly repelled. Landis was trying not just to prove his innocence, but in the language of the CAS decision, to make “a wide-ranging attack on LNDD” and (quoting Richard Young) “a frontal attack on the entire Anti-Doping system.” In other words, it was total war, and the powers that be decided that nothing less than a declaration of total victory would suffice to put down the rebellion.
3. The science of the case was beyond anything the CAS could handle. This case is and has always been a classic “battle of the experts” — USADA would call their experts, Landis would call his experts, and the judges would have to decide who to believe. The CAS worked without the benefit of a scientific expert like Dr. Botre, who helped the AAA arbitration panel sort through the pros and cons of the expert testimony in Malibu. The CAS panel members could not hope to be smarter than these experts, so they chose to believe the experts with the most experience doing drug testing for athletes. Unfortunately for Landis, these experts (most of whom have pledged never to testify in favor of an athlete, and all of whom would lose their livelihood if they spoke against the ADA system) all sided with USADA.
This is the clearest reason why Landis lost so badly. The CAS decided to base its decision on what the ADA experts had to say. All of these experts worked for USADA. None of these experts worked for Landis. Landis was shut out.
4. The Landis team somehow antagonized the CAS panel. This is difficult to explain, and difficult to understand, but there’s no way to read the CAS decision without concluding that the panel was, er, teed off. The panel clearly reacted badly to allegations made by the Landis team that the other side lied, forged documents, and otherwise engaged in fraudulent conduct. Like I said, it’s hard to believe that the CAS panel would have been so sensitive, given the fact that this battle has been dirty from the outset. But maybe the CAS is used to more genteel conduct.
5. I think that the CAS saw what’s coming next: Landis’ next move (if he decides not to quit this ugly business) is to challenge the ADA arbitration system in U.S. federal court. I think this is why Landis went to the CAS in the first place (the U.S. courts would not take his case until he’s exhausted his ADA remedies). In U.S. court, the battle gets nastier still: the focus will be on the fairness of the ADA arbitration system. Perhaps the CAS resented being used as a stepping stone to such a challenge. Perhaps the CAS sensed that they were dealing with a litigant whose next move will be to challenge the legitimacy of bodies like the CAS to decide the fates of athletes.
I don’t know if all this is enough to explain the rout at the CAS, but I’m tired too.
As far as whether any athlete can prove his innocence before a system like this … I don’t know. Maybe the cause is hopeless when the athlete’s defense is based solely on the science. Or maybe the athlete has to somehow get the support of a current ADA lab head (but how can you do that?).
I think that the only hope for the system is better science performed by better labs. Once the “A” sample tests were run and analyzed at LNDD, back in July of 2006, Landis was finished. Sadly, we didn’t know that then.
But Larry –
Wasn’t this very “CAS Moment/Landis Guilty!” – the very type of scenario we have been discussing – campaigning against? Each of us in our own way? I am at a sense of utter outraged amazement…
What I learned:
The fix is in – deposition, truth, equal justice and science are no defense against rampant McCarthyism, Circular Rationalism, Politics and the controlling powers behind “pro cycling!” The Beast that is just plain – Euro-hungry and power-player supreme. One thing for sure – any less biased, no “conflict of interested parties” (sarcasm alert!) could not have come into play without the aid of intention!
The “hands-off” response of the legitimate judiciaries to what is going on in front of their faces – makes me wonder – Why are they not getting involved in getting at the truths contained in the Landis Matter! WADA is not ABOVE THE LAW! It would seem that next – we simply have to make the fight just about that!
I completely reject Travis Tygart as my voice in matters of fair play and sound judgment! One has to ask – what could he possibly think that he will in the end- gain? Hats off to you Floyd – make the right choice!
Landis should continue to pursue all his legal options as long as the suspension is in effect, if he can afford it. This would allow him to compete at least in the legal arena, if not on his bike, and it would keep WADA/USADA/LNDD’s feet to the fire for this gross miscarriage of justice. Who knows, maybe a “Army-McCarthy type hearing” is possible, if anyone in Washington is brave enough to stand up to the anti-doping establishment and pursue some much needed reform. (Though, I wouldn’t count on it.)
Guys, you all say you’re “amazed”, “angry”, “astonished”…
It’s almost as if you believe that there is no way in the world that Landis could possibly have doped. Why not? It’s right that we view charges against people as “innocent until proven guilty”, but why, once the process has completed, and a verdict delivered, do you still feel Landis MUST be innocent. Tell me this: Have you guys ever raced in Europe? How many pros do you know that have? Do you talk to them, candidly, about what they have seen or been advised to do? I have. Do you really know what goes on over there? It doesn’t sound like it to me: “…truth, equal justice and science are no defense against rampant McCarthyism, Circular Rationalism, Politics…” Truth!? Come on, wake up!
Sorry to be somewhat negative, but if I tell you blood doping and EPO micro-dosing is still going on all the time, together with viagra and testosterone abuse in frightening quantities (like Landis did and got caught doing), amongst amateurs and especially the ProTour, are you surprised? Do you think it can’t possibly be true? Did the police raid at the LA-MSS team HQ at Póvoa de Varzim in Portugal a few days ago, which found a great deal of banned drugs and transfusion equipment, just make it all up? 5 riders and 4 members of staff under investigation might indicate there are still people who think they can get away with it.
Look, the CAS panel took Landis’ defence, examined it as thoroughly as they could, and came to the conclusion that the valid points the Landis defense made about the protocols followed, and the mistakes made, would not have caused the positive result. If they had followed all the procedures and protocols to the letter (and yes, they should have) Landis would still be positive. The lab made admin mistakes, sure, but those mistakes did not make Landis’ blood show very high values of illegal products, they did not mean that Landis’ blood was corrupted.
Sorry to disagree with your victimisation of Landis, but the fact is, he was playing with the hot sauce – has done for years. Anyone who has known him over the time he has been in Europe knows this to be the case. Landis’ medical support staff simply messed up this time: they put the wrong blood back into the guy, blood from a heavy overloaded training phase, instead of blood that had been cleaned up and didn’t contain banned substances. They realised not long after breakfast the following day, and Landis was advised to try to flush/dilute as much as possible out, hence the 70-plus bidons he got through.
I’m not sure what it would take to open your eyes to the real truth, other than going and racing in Italy or Belgium for a season, but there you go. I am quite certain you’ll round on this post and attack it en masse, but whatever you say, I know what I have seen.
Johan,
I don’t doubt that doping goes on in European pro racing. You’d really have to be blind not to see that it does. What I doubt, after having looked carefully at the evidence against Landis, is whether or not this particular test result is credible and whether the verdicts in the case are supported by the evidence. The lab results and the evidence against Landis seem pretty shaky.
But what I’m stunned by is not the verdict, so much as what the panel said in their opinion. It almost seems as if they were angry that they had to be a part of this mess and were saying to him, “Why did you bother us?” Well, because it’s his right to pursue all of his appeals for one.
I don’t know whether he was, as you said, “playing with the hot sauce” for years. Perhaps he was. Perhaps your scenario is plausible. Landis denies it, however. But I’ve heard from former pros who’ve raced over there that while doping happens, not everyone does. For myself, I’ve never had the occasion to race over there, nor been at the level where I’d even be competitive in a major race.
There are certainly plenty of stories about teams and individuals being busted for doping that it’s clear it’s still going on. I don’t doubt that in the least. It’s been a part of pro cycling for a long, long time, in fact.
But for the Landis case, I don’t think the evidence is quite so clear as it’s often been painted in the mainstream media. It’s murky. And that leaves each of us having to weigh what we’ve read and learned from the case to draw our own conclusions.
In looking at the panel’s decision, and reading through the transcripts of the March hearings, we get a window into how the case was presented by each side and what the issues were. We can each judge for ourselves whether the USADA side presented the most compelling arguments or not. We can see, albeit without being able to hear, how the Landis side presented their case.
I have a hard time believing that they so totally botched their presentation the second time around that the panel didn’t even give them a few points before deciding against them. It’s possible, I suppose, but it seems pretty incredible. In that sense, the AAA panel did a better job, at least, from what I’ve seen so far.
The most stunning aspect to all of this is really the last thing I asked. Suppose an innocent athlete — someone who really is clean — were to be charged with a doping violation. How would that athlete prove his/her innocence? I really can’t see a way it could be done. And that’s a failing of the system, because, regardless of Floyd’s guilt or innocence, eventually this kind of case is going to happen. Should a truly innocent person be tagged with the label “doper”? Somewhere in all of this, there ought to be a way for such a person to prevail. And, as I said, I’m not seeing a way for that to happen.
In closing, I would certainly hope that any commentary on your post is done respectfully, as that’s what I encourage on this site. We can disagree, but we should do so with respect.
Had a long chat with a well-known pro who has also been accused of doping or inquiring about doping. He categorically denied it, and when pressed, mentioned something about the accuser’s own background. When checked out, the accuser had been guilty of a character-busting charge, thus negating his own credibility. So in this case, I’m more content with believing the athlete over the establishment any day of the week. Promoting the establishment’s POV uber alles smacks of complacency. Johan, did you take the time to download and read Baker’s book? It’s pretty astonishing.
Good response Rant.
It seems to me that what little I have read of the decision ( I admit I’m letting others read and summarize for me ) that it appears very slanted. And why did they take things so personally? Shouldn’t they have thicker skins? I’d like to see the athletes and the labs held to the same accountability as much as possible and this obviously hasn’t happened here.
Johan,
I do know that most of those 70-plus bidons he got through were poured over his head. Hard to flush stuff out of your blood that way. It may be a fact that Landis was playing with the hot sauce, but nobody has shown enough proof of this. Which is what I think most people are annoyed with. We didn’t see a fair process. We saw the appearance of an athlete being allowed to go through the system and defend himself, but that’s not necessarily the same thing. Are you going to state Zimbabwe went through the process of elections therefore Mugabe is the president fair and square? (An extreme example I know, but a current one.) If you personally saw Floyd do a blood transfusion among other things than fine, you know he’s guilty that’s good enough for you. But I didn’t see that and the labs bungled the tests so I don’t know if he’s guilty. I can’t convict him just because you say so or because he’s a professional cyclist in Europe and we all know that they cheat. That’s my $2 worth anyway.
And Rant, I’m really starting to think that there’s no way an innocent athlete, assuming there is such a thing, could prove his / her innocence once the test comes up positive. Unless the lab willing admits a mistake, what could you do? Their word and witnesses are assumed correct, the athlete’s wrong. I don’t think you could provide enough evidence to change that mindset, especially since the athlete’s evidence is not considered correct.
Ken
Johan, welcome to RYHO! I’m glad you’re here. FWIW, I thought that at least half of your post was terrific.
We ARE a relatively polite group here, particularly in comparison to other corners of the web. Your arguments will go further here to the extent that they avoid personal attack and stick as closely as possible to the issues. We’re particularly sensitive regarding personal attacks on our blog host, who after all is a published expert on these topics. But we like newbies, and we particularly like people who disagree with us, because divergent points of view are essential to the quest for truth, and besides, we like a lively discussion.
On to your post, point by point. First of all, it’s impossible to say that any cyclist who rode in the Landis era could not possibly have doped. We have too much evidence to the contrary. We know that a certain percentage of cyclists have been doping. What percentage? I’ve seen estimates all over the place, maybe just a handful, maybe up to 80%. We don’t know. But the percentage is high enough so that we cannot say for certain that any particular cyclist in the 2006 Tour was for certain riding clean. On the same count, we cannot say for certain (putting aside confessions and positive results in doping tests) that any particular cyclist was doping. It’s a big gray area.
Let’s drill down a bit further: Landis was not just “any” cyclist, he was a top cyclist. Was it possible for a cyclist to win the Tour de France in 2006 without having doped? This has been a popular topic of discussion here at RYHO. I think everyone here agrees that certain forms of doping (in particular, blood doping and EPO) can enhance performance to a significant extent. (In contrast, there’s little evidence that doping with testosterone during the course of a Tour would be performance enhancing.) On this basis, some here conclude that anyone who ever stood on a cycling podium during this era of cycling must have been doping. Others here disagree, and argue that there are legal means available that will allow clean cyclists to keep pace with the dopers. Ultimately, there’s no way to answer this question for certain.
In your third paragraph, I think that your description is the most respectful and least conspiratorial way to describe the arbitration process in a nutshell. Both arbitration panels looked at the evidence and asked, “if Landis did not dope, how do you explain these results?” Of course, this is not the standard for review required under the WADA rules, or indeed under any fair set of rules. It’s like a guy convicted of bank robbery based on a photograph taken at the scene. The photograph is out of focus. The police conclude that it’s a photo of John Doe. The court asks John, “can you prove that this isn’t you in the photograph?” John responds, “of course I can’t prove that, the photograph is out of focus!” But I think you’re accurately indicating what an accused athlete needs to do: it’s not enough for the athlete to prove that the evidence against him does not prove what the ADA says it proves — it’s not enough to say that the picture is too fuzzy to allow for identification of the bank robber. The athlete is also going to have to explain what the evidence actually does prove — he’s going to have to make the picture clear and show that it’s actually a picture of a knitting circle, or a kindergarten field trip, or a Thanksgiving Day parade (i.e., not a picture of a bank robbery).
That’s a helluva burden of proof.
I can’t go along with the rest of what you’ve written. We’re pretty sure that Landis would not have been convicted if the lab had followed all of its procedures. If the lab had followed its procedures, it would not have screwed up the T/E test preliminary to the CIR test, the T/E test would probably have been within normal range, and the lab would not have gone on to do the CIR test that was the ultimate ground for Landis’ AAF. The tests were on Landis’ urine, not his blood. The mistakes may very well have caused the AAF, as has been discussed here and elsewhere. We’ve all read claims that Landis was “known” to have doped, but there’s no proof, no credible witness, nothing but the kind of whisper and innuendo that’s so popular in cycling circles.
You say that you’re giving us the straight scoop, from the inside. Johan, a lot of us have friends and contacts on the inside of cycling. We participate here with eyes wide open.
I hope you continue to post here.
At a minimum, if LNDD had followed proper procedure and had transparently documented everything at the time, we would have a much clearer picture of what was actually done. Was the wrong column used or was the explanation given post facto true? Etc. etc. If it was clearer, perhaps somewhere along the line someone would have been able to say “We screwed up” or alternatively Landis might have confessed, or at least not attempted to contest the charges.
But since we lack documentation and often have only some version of “trust us, we did it this way” we don’t know for sure what happened and what impact it might have had on the outcome of the tests. We can’t say for sure that what LNDD did did not produce a false positive nor can we really say that have conclusively proved he doped. Both the original hearing and the CAS ruling chose to believe the USADA witnesses over Landis’ witnesses. In the original hearing, the panel seemed to take some efforts to examine Landis’ side. CAS seems to have simply discount their testimony, even criticising the witnesses for being too much on Landis’ side.
The deck is well and truly stacked against an athlete. He cannot use anyone deemed to be a qualified expert as most if not all such experts are in WADA’s employ, forbidden to testify in favor of an athlete. Labs are now free to make all sorts of errors, just as long as they are “honest” mistakes
Rant:
“The most stunning aspect to all of this is really the last thing I asked. Suppose an innocent athlete “” someone who really is clean “” were to be charged with a doping violation. How would that athlete prove his/her innocence? I really can’t see a way it could be done. And that’s a failing of the system, because, regardless of Floyd’s guilt or innocence, eventually this kind of case is going to happen. Should a truly innocent person be tagged with the label “doper”? Somewhere in all of this, there ought to be a way for such a person to prevail. And, as I said, I’m not seeing a way for that to happen.”
The truth is that a truly innocent athlete contesting his case would look much different than Landis’ defense. For starters, since clean riders are a rarity in the pro peloton, plenty of character witnesses would come forward. Landis was screwed from the beginning in this regard–in the context of Puerto, no one was about to risk the negative publicity of coming forward to lie for Landis. I’m told that Landis testified as a character witness at the Hamilton hearings—it’s hard to imagine a pro coming forward to do the same thing after Puerto.
This outcome is a just one. Any other outcome would have set back the cause of anti-doping tests being a credible deterrent. For me the whole point of anti-doping is making sure cycling is about cycling–not who has the most money. Cycling needs to be about the best riders competing against one another–not who employs the best doctors, lawyers, and PR staff. As everyone now knows, the Armstrong/Ullrich/Beloki/Heras/Basso years made a mockery of such naive notions, which is why the culture needed/needs to change.
I’m sorry for Landis that he watched Armstrong evade testing positive for 7 years and then got busted in his moment of glory. I’m sorry if he feels he is a scapegoat. But cycling is taking steps to fight the doping culture, and Landis is responsible for what was in his body. I imagine that if he had the opportunity to do it all over again he would have taken Lemond’s advice and told the truth from the start.
Ludwig, good to see you back!
I’m struggling with the logic of your statement that if clean riders are a rarity in the peloton, then plenty of character witnesses would have stepped forward to defend Landis if he were clean. How would a character witness know whether or not Landis doped? Only someone who spent 24-7-365 with Landis could know this for certain, and of course there’s no one like that for Landis or any other human on the planet. Now, I know that you believe that the cyclists themselves (both the clean cyclists and the dopers) know who is doping and who is not, but I don’t know how you’d convince an arbitration panel that, say, Cadel Evans knows better who’s doping than the LNDD.
OK, maybe we could imagine that hundreds of character witnesses might have come forward to testify that Floyd was known by everyone as a clean guy … and maybe the arbitration panel might have concluded that if Landis doped, then at least one of these hundreds of character witnesses would have seen him dope. Problem is, the panel would then have to believe that every single one of these character witnesses was telling the truth … if there was one witness seen as a liar among these hundreds of character witnesses, the panel could conclude that this was the one witness who’d actually seen Landis dope and that the rest just hadn’t been in the right place at the right time.
There’s also the issue of the WADA rules. They give no weight to character witnesses. Remember Dick Pound’s nazi frogmen? It doesn’t matter whether anyone ever saw Landis dope. It doesn’t matter if Landis convinces the panel (using a truth serum or a lie detector or whatever you might imagine) that Landis sincerely believes that he never doped. All that matters is the lab test.
Besides … you’re forgetting Omerta. (Ludwig, LOL, how could YOU forget Omerta? ; ^ ) ). Wouldn’t it be a violation of omerta for any rider to step forward? The logic of stepping forward is that the character witness knows who is doping and who is not doping. Wouldn’t USADA have torn such a witness to shreds by asking the witness to identify someone — anyone — who is doping in the peloton? If the witness did the omerta thing and claimed that no one is doping, then who would believe that witness about anything? If the witness did the omerta thing and claimed that he didn’t know who was doping, then why would anyone believe that witness when he said that Landis wasn’t doping?
As to what a clean athlete’s defense might look like? You mean, a defense where the athlete puts all of the relevant documents on the web for all to see? Where substantial portions of the athlete’s defense are also placed on the web, in a wiki? Where the athlete fights to the nth level of his ability to clear his name? And he writes a book about it? Who has contested a doping AAF in a manner like this, before or since? Granted, there are things that Landis could have done better, but a clean athlete’s defense should be based on the notion that he has nothing to hide, and I struggle to think of anyone accused of anything who has laid his case wide open for public scrutiny the way Landis has.
Ludwig,
Welcome back, your commentary has been missed.
I don’t think that character witnesses — whether it would be 1 or 100 — would matter in an anti-doping hearing the way the rules are currently constructed. Both Joe Papp’s and Greg LeMond’s testimony was ignored by the AAA panel because what they said didn’t directly pertain to Landis’ result from Stage 17. Same for the other B sample tests. Those results were excluded as well.
With that in mind, I think that any and all character witnesses who would come forward to testify would ultimately be ignored, too. They can all say how the accused is a great person, would never dope, has never been seen to dope, etc. and that wouldn’t address the test results at the heart of a case. The way WADA has constructed the rules, it’s the test results that matter, and that’s what the athlete has to overcome. Exactly how he or she can do so is what I’m questioning.
I’m not entirely sure what the elements of a successful defense for an accused, but innocent, athlete is. But in the current system, I don’t think that character witnesses would carry any weight. Perhaps they should, but that will mean the rules need to change.
Larry:
Johan –
In your first paragraph you state:”It’s almost as if you believe that there is no way in the world that Landis could possibly have doped. Why not?
It is simply my “choice” to believe that Landis “is innocent till proven guilty.”
Unlike your directed possibility that Landis doped and your equally directed answer, “why not?” is not based on answering the question – rather then to allow you to express “your own personal beliefs” – concerning the Landis Matter.
You have every right to apply this in just this way – BUT – may I point out that what Landis and his Team – DID DO is present evidence – that there were errors made by the LNDD –
That “Not ! depending on who you choose to believe amongst the scientists and doctors” – there exists a “question” as to whether LNDD was merely incompetent or fully moronic when they ERASED results from their previous tests – from their hard drive – THIS single fact should get some major bells tolling.
If LNDD is an accredited Lab – following “protocol” when doing their JOBS! – – THEIR jobs DEFINE that they MUST FOLLOW PROTOCOL – this is not an “optional” sort of thing. If one were attentive to the proceedings in Irwine – the LNDD displayed itself for what it was – NOT COMPETENT to do such stringent work as needed to run an “accredited lab!”
Putting aside for just one moment your belief that “everybody” dopes in the peleton – Why is it exactly that the WADA rules and bylaws are designed to treat a person as guilty – because a supposed “accredited lab” says; they found something! – but they cant share this information with the defense council because they “make a practice of “reusing” by wiping the hard drive…- What on earth could MAKE me so foolish to be THINKING that Floyd got a Bum wrap! Because I have been following this matter for the past 18 months and have seen how the world of “pro cycling” actually does seem to work.
I have absolutely no hesitation when it comes to getting the dopers – I DO FIND MYSELF at ODDS with the methods being employed!!! So yeah – I am shocked and amazed – and a whole lot – just plain angry. You have every right to believe that “justice” was served by this CAS decision – I give myself “permission” to disagree with you.
—It’s right that we view charges against people as “innocent until proven guilty”, but why, once the process has completed, and a verdict delivered, do you still feel Landis MUST be innocent –
To answer directly – BECAUSE I DO NOT TRUST THE “POWERS THAT BE” – to be “fair and just” – it would appear – they have some other agenda.
ANY RIDER once accused – is seen as “guilty” – there is no “process of real law” behind the WADA/UCI Rules. As worded – it is basically stripping basic human rights of athletes – the Athlete HAS NO REAL MEANS OF DEFENSE! Because once “he is accused – HE IS SEEN AS GUILTY – and nobody better argue about it either! Either you do what we tell you or we destroy you – WITHOUT EVER REALLY ADDRESSING THE REALITY OF WHETHER YOU ARE A DOPER OR NOT! Consider yourself “finished” in this town! So where have the “checks and balances” disappeared to?
What about simply addressing the fact that there ARE CONFLICT of ISSUES that be put a stop to and dealt with. It stretches the “credibility” of the alphabet soup when they “design” a rule-book that empowers one group to be “judge and jury” al lin one move. I definitely am not for that!
So – I guess – I’m just being old fashioned – because I insist that there actually be a “fair and just” means of fighting doping – without resorting to Fascist methods. And turning the whole anti-doping movement into becoming merely another means of “controlling the Racers” – with the stack stacked so that THERE IS NO WAY TO FIGHT FOR YOUR NAME!
AC,
I don’t know if you got the email I sent, but it appears that your comment vanished into the ether. I’m not sure what happened there, but you can edit the comment, or you can drop me an email and I’ll be happy to insert the text that should be there.
One tip, it appears that certain characters like
<, > and +don’t display properly. The first two of those have been known to cause text in comments to vanish. It’s a quirk of WordPress, I suspect.Sorry for the inconvenience.
While certainly if Landis et al had any intentions of getting this into the US court system, they had to go to CAS first, but I don’t think that they would have intentionally tanked the case there. Realistically, this was the last chance they had to get the ban overturned and the 2006 victory restored. The best that US court system could do is perhaps force US Cycling to lift the ban stateside, which could cause a lot of trouble for US Cycling and/or any US race Landis might enter under such circumstances. I’d bet that UCI would be more likely to discover their cojones if Landis were to enter, say, the Tour of Missouri, and actually take action against riders who would compete against what UCI would consider a banned rider.
At several times in this whole affair and some of the peripheral spin-offs, like the ASO-UCI tiff, I have had the feeling that there was some undercover issue driving one side or the other, undercover and note directly related to the overt issues at hand. And I wonder if something like that is going on here that CAS has piled on, not just content to find him guilty as charged, but to jump on him and his lawyers and witnesses for both contesting the charges in the first place as well as for the way they presented the case. It is not unusual for defense lawyers to castigate the police and prosecuters, accusing them of planting or altering evidence, of coercing confessions, and various other forms of misconduct. If the prosecution feels they are too far out of line, they object and the judge makes a ruling. Did USADA object to the way Landis’ witnesses were testifying? Did the panel warn them they they felt they were “crossing the line”? Or did they just tack this stuff on after the fact to further drag down Landis? Does Suh and his law firm have a history with one or more of the arbitrators that perhaps they are trying to get back at him for?
William,
I also don’t think that Team Landis would have intentionally tanked the CAS case, because a victory at CAS would have been fuel for future lawsuits against various entities. They needed a knockout victory at the CAS to ensure the best hopes for those lawsuits down the road, and to ensure the maximum amount of compensation.
I know the old expression goes, “Sometimes you have to lose some battles in order to win the war.” But I don’t think this was a battle that Team Landis could afford to lose, and I’d have a hard time believing that they’d basically thrown the match. Possible, I suppose, but from where I see it, highly unlikely.
It seems more like perhaps a case of they chose what turned out to be the wrong strategy. Not so much in terms of had they used a different strategy they might have one, but had they used a different strategy they might not have pissed off the panel as much as they did. Hard to tell how much the pissing off influenced the final outcome, as far as the verdict. I don’t any. But it certainly influenced the tone of the written decision, and perhaps also influenced the punishments inflicted.
William,
I agree with the thought that the strategy may have inflamed The System, and also with the thought another strategy may not have made any difference except in the tone. That annoyance with the strategy did result in the caustic tone of the award seems evidence to me that The Panel was not as neutral and impartial as it perhaps ought to have been — which raises questions about the fairness of the process.
TBV
Which of course is ironic, TBV, since the panel chastised the Landis experts for not being neutral.
It actually strikes me as symbolic of the whole process that the award criticizes expert witnesses for “acting for the most part as advocates … and not as scientists objectively assisting the Panel in the search for truth”, when the award itself, in tone if not in fact, reads as though the Panel was itself acting as an advocate of USADA/LNDD/WADA, rather than objectively seeking the truth.
IMO, if the Panel felt like this was an unwarranted attack on the entire system, then they could have gone a long way towards diffusing that attack by taking the moral high ground and not allowing personal opinion to color the award. If the decision had been predicated on the idea that the Landis team simply didn’t prove any ISL violations, without the extra commentary, I may not have agreed with their logic, but it wouldn’t have left as much of a bad taste in my mouth.