Over at the Huffington Post, Dave Hollander asks an interesting question:
It’s been two bloody years. I’d like to know: What does Floyd Landis owe Oscar Pereiro?
The answer is: Absolutely nothing. I know that sounds harsh, but it’s true. Hollander gives a bit of the history of stages 16 and 17 of the Tour in his tome, correctly noting that Pereiro was in contention at the time, and had Landis not come back from the dead, Pereiro would have been in yellow, and presumably would have won the race.
Not so fast. Rewind a few stages prior to Floyd’s famous meltdown. At the beginning of stage 13, Oscar Pereiro was sitting in 40-something-th place. Half an hour down from the leaders. He’d had a bad day earlier in the race, and had fallen far, far out of contention. And then, on stage 13, Pereiro and several other riders got into a breakaway. One that gained about half an hour on the pack containing all the riders in contention, vaulting Pereiro, who was basically roadkill before the day began, into the yellow jersey.
Letting the breakaway gain that much time was a tactical move by the team controlling the race at that point and their captain. That would be Phonak and Landis, respectively. Had Floyd and Phonak led the charge to catch the escapees, no doubt the peloton would have chased them down and Pereiro’s overall finishing place in the 2006 Tour would have been — forty-something-th.
Why did Landis give the yellow jersey away to Pereiro? As he explains in his book, Positively False, it was so that Phonak wouldn’t have to defend the yellow jersey all the way to the end of the race. They wanted another team to do some of the work defending the yellow jersey, so that they could keep from burning themselves out. It was a gutsy strategy, and Pereiro and his team did well to hold onto the jersey until Landis took it back on stage 15. Pereiro did really well by hanging on for dear life, finishing second place overall on the road.
This is not to disrespect Oscar’s abilities. He’s a top-ten, or near top-ten level competitor for the general classification at the Tour. But the plain fact of the matter is that he wouldn’t have been in the position he was, and he wouldn’t have finished second/first (depending on how you count it), had it not been for Floyd Landis. So, in some respects, Pereiro owes Floyd, rather than the other way around. Yes, Oscar didn’t get to celebrate his “victory” in Paris, like most Tour winners do, but them’s the breaks. He wouldn’t have been anywhere near a top ten finish in 2006 had it not been for his former teammate giving him the yellow jersey on stage 13.
Beyond that, however, is a matter of process. Having been accused of a doping violation, Landis was afforded the right to challenge his suspension not once, but twice. First at the AAA hearing in May 2007, and second in an appeal of that initial result to the CAS, whose decision was announced yesterday. Those appeals are part of the very thin veneer of “fairness” that the anti-doping system offers to athletes accused of doping. Anyone in that situation is entitled to exercise those appeals. Landis, as was his right, did.
You may think it was a colossal waste of time and money to appeal. You may think that the system is rigged and the results a foregone conclusion. You may look at the evidence and say, “Guilty!” You may look at the evidence and scream, “Innocent!” But within the anti-doping system, as we know it, Floyd Landis had every right to appeal to the AAA, and appeal again to the CAS. He owes no one a darned thing (except, apparently, USADA to the tune of $100 grand) for exercising those rights.
He doesn’t owe me. He doesn’t owe you. And he most definitely doesn’t owe Oscar Pereiro.
Floyd Landis owes so much to Oscar Pereiro, because Oscar Pereiro got declared the winner of the 2006 Tour de France after Floyd Landis got disqualified. If Floyd Landis had not been disqualified, then Oscar Pereiro would have come in second and therefore … er … um …
That didn’t come out sounding right. Let me start again.
Floyd Landis owes so much to Oscar Pereiro, because Oscar Pereiro won stage 13 of the Tour de France by 30 minutes when Pereiro joined a breakaway group of riders and Landis (who led the race at the time) decided that Pereiro was too mediocre a rider to bother to chase down. Then in stage 17, the peloton once again failed to pursue the leader in the breakaway until it was too late, only this time the leader was Landis. Who went on to win. All thanks to Oscar Pereiro.
Y’know, that doesn’t sound right.
Floyd Landis owes so much to Oscar Pereiro, because what the hell was up with Floyd Landis not retiring like Lance Armstrong, or not getting disqualified for Operacion Puerto like Basso, Ullrich and Mancebo, or not getting most of his teammates disqualified like Vinokourov did so he couldn’t ride, leaving the top 5 riders from the 2005 Tour out of the 2006 Tour but Landis still in it. What was up with that? Landis could have followed the example of Alejandro Valverde, who was the leader of Pereiro’s team and would normally be the team member riding for the top spot on the podium, but who at least recognized how much HE owed to Oscar Pereiro and had the decency to go and break his collarbone. Was it too much to ask for Landis to develop a urinary infection like Danilo Di Luca, or a bacterial infection like Tom Boonen, or some other kind of infection like Iban Mayo, or just withdraw from the race for no discernable reason like Oscar Freire? Hell, Oscar Sevilla didn’t think this was too much to ask, and neither did Joseba Beloki, Alberto Contador, Jorg Jaksch, Andrey Kashechkin and countless others who recognized how much they owed Oscar Pereiro and had the decency not to race notwithstanding the fact that they were all arguably more talented riders than Oscar Pereiro. Floyd Landis should seriously think about why he was willing to interfere with Oscar Pereiro’s 2006 Tour victory when so many others were willing to risk life and limb in the opposite pursuit.
I think I figured out where that $100,000 figure came from:
2006 Tour de France
GC prize: 450,000 euros;
Daily malliot jaune prime: 7,000 euros.
S-17 Prime: 200 euros
Floyd was in yellow for 5 days, so the total prize would have been 485,200 euros. At 10% interest (not unreasonable for a credit card level purchase) and given the current value of the dollar ($1.5562/euro as of June 1 2008) were looking right at about $900,000. One ninth of that (GC winners traditionally, if not by contract, share the prize money with their 9 person team) is right about $100k.
Like Deep Throat said: “Follow the money.”
All those who hold that most, if not all, pro cyclists dope, and that in particular, anyone who rides well enough to mount a podium certainly dopes, are strangely silent in regard to Periero.
I don’t want to cast any aspersions on his character. I have absolutely no knowledge of his status vis a vis chemical aid. For all I know, he may be clean as the driven snow. Or he may have doped to the gills in 2006. But a lot of the invective directed against Landis is that he “robbed” from other riders. That is only true if he was dirty and the riders he allegedly robbed were clean. But if other riders also doped, and just didn’t get caught, than they were no more deserving of whatever place they ultimately received than Landis might be, if indeed he did dope. I personally am not convinced.
If you guys want to figure out where the $100,000 came from the answer is simple: Richard Young. That is what he asked for (normally some submission of costs is required ; see the denial of costs in Jeff Adam’s case because a bill of costs was not timely submitted) and that is EXACTLY what he got. I think USADA would not want Young’s bill actually submitted so it wasn’t. Yet another rule that applies to athletes and not the powers that be.
Even Richard Young had to make up the number from somewhere. Hmmm….he stood to steal $100k from us….let’s stick him with that amount for a penalty.
I haven’t look closely enough, but I rather think the CAS cut and pasted the award together from the USADA’s submission of recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. They were simply acting as clerks. Anyone know what their fee was?
eightzero,
In reading through USADA’s final brief,
I don’t recall them specifying an amount that Floyd should pay them, althoughthey did ask forunspecifiedfees (see Bill Hue’s comment, below) related to the witnesses who traveled to, and were not called to testify at, the hearings. Why they weren’t called, I don’t know. Perhaps, given the limited amount of time each side gets to present their case, Team Landis had to address other things that USADA had brought up. USADA and the CAS could have avoided those individuals sitting around for nothing had they allowed them to be deposed ahead of time. Which, I gather, was one of Team Landis’ pre-hearing requests that the panel denied.As for the panel’s ruling, it reads very much like a cut and paste job, with some added invective thrown in. Whatever Maurice Suh did to anger the panel, it clearly comes through in the decision. I don’t buy their argument that Landis’ experts crossed the line. Disagreeing with USADA’s experts is to be expected. Scientists disagree on things all the time. The panel’s job was to determine whose testimony made the most sense. They pretty much abdicated that responsibility and, throwing their hands up in the air, said, “Well, the experts disagree. So we’ll go with USADA’s experts, because they work in the anti-doping field.” It’s not the first time a CAS panel has done that. It’s disheartening, because it detracts from the already limited options an athlete has to defend him/herself.
Rant,
Page 48 of the brief:
Mr. Young asks for $60,000 for 9 witnesses for 4 days that he says Maurice made USADA produce without calling them to testify, $33,000 for USADA’s expert witness fees and “substantial” attorney’s fees, none of which was documented by a Bill of Costs. As stated, Young asked specifically for $93,000 and an even $100,000 award rounds that up nicely.
I am late to this…funeral. Just read your post about the decision, and I am convinced more than ever that justice was not even the question. It was all politics, for whatever small comfort that is to Floyd and Amber. Cut and paste, indeed.
Bill,
Thanks. I missed that when reading through the brief. My eyes must have glazed over by then. 😉
CAS says FL has to pay $100K to USADA. What is to compel FL to actually do this. Why can’t FL just say FU%%#K OFF to the fine, or take it out of my 2007 earnings or some such? I certainly wouldn’t pay that, and I seriously doubt a US court would uphold the fine. Can the USADA say he can’t race until the fine is paid? No way, that is not their jurisdiction. I am not sure of the guilt or inocence of FL, but I am sure of one thing: nobody else is either. So their is a legitimate need for bodies like the CAS to arbitrate cases. In this case their ruling was more like “why are you bothering us? we’re annoyed, so you have to pay a portion of the other side’s arbitrary legal fees.”
Well, presumaby here’s the document Floyd signed:
http://www.usacycling.org/forms/intl_license.pdf
Note the section “applicant declaration.” I’m guessing USA Cycling has standing to enforce this agreement. Whether USADA does is fuzzy in my mind. Are they a third party beneficiary? Dunno. Does USADA have statutory standing to enforce an arbitrational award, either in a US state or US federal court? Dunno. The declaration seems to imply the CAS is the “only competent jurisdiction of appeal” though, so maybe this precludes any other court having “jurisdiction,” either personal or subject matter.
One thing for sure: the declaration was written by an amateur. Maybe this is the English translation of an LNDD document.
Since, to the best of my knowledge, Landis no longer holds a US Cycling license, they have no hold over him at the time. If he were to attempt to resume racing when the sanction expires, they very well could tell him to pay up before they issue a license. It would be quite hypocritical if USADA were to go to court to enforce this, when their contention is the US courts lack jurisdiction. But perhaps their lawyers can concoct some convoluted theory.
I once received a traffic ticket in a state near where I was living from the time. I went to court and the judge informed me that, if guilty, my license could be suspended. I enquired about how that would work, since I held a license from another state. He said that the suspension would be on record in his state, and if I was caught driving under suspension, more severe punishment would be taken, and that the information would be sent to my state DMV, who might or might not act on it. I contested the ticket and won.
The whole USAC license thing bugs me. It seems like they’re there to take our money, create a book of rules and regulations, subsidize a few dozen athletes in the up & coming ranks, create a coaching hierarchy and protocol, and maybe offer some secondary and tertiary athlete and race insurance, but by & large, they don’t seem to do much else with my licensing fees. One would have thought that with Steve Johnson at the helm (he was an Ex. Phys. prof at U of U and was Don Myrah’s coach in the 90’s), that he might have taken some interest in this case and at least offered some of USAC’s resources.
But he didn’t, and the board didn’t, and I really do not know why.
8-0, all professional cyclists are licensed by a national federation, such as USA Cycling in the U.S. The terms of a national cycling license require that the cyclist follow the anti-doping rules of the national federation, the UCI and WADA. The authority of the CAS is also set forth in the license, as you’ve pointed out, and in the case of a license from USA Cycling, the authority of USADA is also provided for. The UCI regulations (and, I believe, the USADA regulations) adopt the WADA Code as the anti-doping code. That’s where it all starts, in a nutshell.
FYI, Dave Hollander thinks Rant’s attitude is “dickish”. See comments there.
Well, there’s been no shortage of dickishness anywhere near the topic of this case, so it would be silly to imagine it stopping now.
TBV
Gee, Landis sticks to his story, blows his entire finances to hell, and loses despite evidence that wouldn’t possibly stand up in a real court, and this guy wants to assess damages, too? Pour salt in the wound, why don’t you, while you’re at it. Sheesh.
Dave Hollander missed the whole point of Rant’s post. And I think Larry should have posted his comment on Dave’s article. One of the things Dave doesn’t seem to get is that Oscar was where he was due to Phonak letting that large breakaway go. I’d post it there but for one thing I’m not big on people who say “the lab said he was positive and the arbitrators said he was guilty therefore he is guilty,” without trying to look at the facts for themselves. Because someone else said so is generally not good enough for me. That and it’s the Huffington Post.
Yes Oscar did miss out on a day in the sun on the podium. But then as far as I’m concerned he didn’t win anyway.
ken
Ken,
You know, I’ve tried leaving a comment on DH’s article twice now. Whatever system they’ve got for posting comments over there is even screwier than your typical WordPress with its occasional glitches. 😉 Not sure if I’ll try again, but at least after the second attempt, I saved a copy of what I wrote.
I do think Dave Hollander missed the whole point. But he’s fixated on a different point. The idea that whoever got cheated by a cheater deserves some sort of compensation. That might be true, but the Landis case really isn’t the one to use as an example. The evidence against Landis is too weak, in my opinion, to conclude that he absolutely, positively cheated. But in WADA-world the evidence doesn’t need to be strong, they just need to shut down any effective avenues of challenging the result. I’m afraid that Hollander won’t understand that until WADA/USADA are the ones testing pro baseball, basketball, football and hockey, and one of his favorite athletes gets popped for using. Then he may come to see the flaws in the system. But probably not before. That’s too bad, because he has a much bigger soapbox to get stories like this out than some of the rest of us do.
Rant,
The idea that those who were cheated deserve some sort of compensation is not necessarily a bad one, just one that wouldn’t work out right either. I think Floyd’s case is a bad one for an example as well, but let’s say the tests were done correctly without any question and a bunch of pills, vials, syringes, testosterone patches, a fifth of jack, and plans of the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids fell out of his bag on the way to stage 18. He’s definitely guilty. We would give Oscar the title of winner because he was in second place and that’s pretty reasonable. But the truth is we don’t know who all lost out and how much because Floyd cheated. Stage 17 has already happened. We can guess what would have happened, but we can never know. One thing’s for sure, it would have been different if Floyd hadn’t participated. But there’s no guarantee that Oscar would have ended up winning. So who else do we need to compensate and how?
There are those who want everything wrapped up nice and neatly but it’ll never happen. For one thing some of us won’t just accept decisions, but keep looking at them to see if we think it’s right, even if we can’t do much about it. Also no agency is ever going to eliminate all the cheaters. Making it likely that very few are trying to cheat is a good goal. Thinking you can eliminate it is not.
Ken
Ken, I’ve posted a comment to Dave. Over at Huffington Post, you’re limited to a 250 word response. Those of you who know me appreciate the effect of such a limitation. Might as well ask me to post in Esperanto.
If he responds, I have about 880 words from my unedited post (the one I wrote before I knew of the 250 word limit) to throw back at him.
Even if you put aside the question of how unbelievably lucky Pereiro was to come in second place, it’s hard to understand the moral or sporting point Dave is trying to make. Yeah, I guess that in a different world, the guy who cheated his way into first place owes an apology to the guy who came in second. But the powers that be would have us assume that almost everyone is cheating.
Let’s take the famous statistic from Saugy in Lausanne, and assume that 80% of the peloton doped in 2006. That means that something like 3% of the dopers were caught. (Why I’m supposed to respect a test that at best generates 97% false negatives remains beyond my understanding.) Let’s go further and assume that Pereiro did not dope (or else, why would we care?).
If we eliminate Landis for the discussion, chances are good that whoever might have finished in first in 2006 was doping. So long as we don’t name names (because I think it’s wrong to reason from general statistics to particular cases), chances are that whoever won any world-class Tour in 2006 was doping. Are apologies in order all around? Dave didn’t say so. What seems to make all the difference to Dave is not that Landis (in his view) fell into the 80% category, but that he fell into the 3% category. That’s an odd moral compass, if you ask me.
Ken,
Good points. I don’t know how things could be wrapped up into a neat, tidy package. In a race like the Tour, there are too many variables at play to figure out who would deserve how much compensation. Conceivably, the entire group of finishing riders could argue for a piece of the action. How would that get divvied up?
Larry,
Odd moral compass, indeed. What he’s saying is that those who get caught ought to pay those who didn’t. Hmm. But many of those who didn’t might have been doping, too. It gets all too messy to figure out at some point, doesn’t it.