What Is USADA Afraid Of?

by Rant on November 8, 2006

in Doping in Sports, Floyd Landis, Tour de France

That’s the question on my mind after having read part 4 in an ever increasing series of posts at Trust But Verify dealing with the scheduling of Landis’ arbitration hearing and related matters. Today’s installment goes through the saga of how USADA at first proposed going directly to the CAS and then ultimately backed away from the idea.

At issue (among other things) is Landis’ assertion of his right to have proceedings that are open to the public. And in a Clintonesque moment, Travis Tygart (USADA’s lawyer) even winds up asking what “public” means. Mr. Tygart, it means what it says: other people (i.e. the general public) can observe the hearings. People like law students (the proposed location for the hearings is at a law school in Malibu, California), the media and other interested parties. I know if I were offered the opportunity to be there, I would in a heartbeat. I’d bet that’s true for a lot of my readers, too.

Landis’ side is realistic enough to know that everyone who would like to attend may not be able to, due to space limitations amongst other issues. And they’re not asking for the hearings to be held in such a manner that a cast of thousands would be in the room as the two sides duke it out. USADA, on the other hand, is trying to find any way it can to weasel out of its previous statements that it did not object to such a hearing.

So, what exactly are they afraid of? In public, they project an air of confidence that they’ll win this case. Do they have some private concerns that this might not be the case? Are they afraid that they’ll be publicly humiliated by Howard Jacobs as he presents Landis’ arguments to the arbitration panel? Are they afraid that the public will learn the truth about how such cases are handled?

Meanwhile, the “correspondent” known only as Anonymous Fortune Teller has put a few more intriguing comments on TBV. Some of AFT’s theories sound a bit far-fetched (but, hey, juicing to cure cancer sounds far-fetched, too — and some people swear it cured them of all manner of unspeakably horrible diseases), but he seems to write with an insider’s knowledge of how things are done in the pro peloton.

He certainly has opinions about the politics of pro cycling, and he appears to have some knowledge of how pro cyclists dope. AFT has made a number of predictions, including that Ivan Basso would be cleared of doping charges related to Operation Puerto and then move over to Disco for the upcoming season. Both of those have come to pass. It will be interesting to see if his other predictions also bear out.

Circling back to USADA, it seems to me there’s a number of things they could be afraid of:

  • First, losing and losing big. Imagine how embarrassing it would be to the whole anti-doping community if the case against Floyd Landis goes down in flames. Their credibility would be shot. (Not that it already isn’t. There’s some big names, like the NBA’s David Stern, speaking out about what’s wrong with the process.)
  • Second, even if they win, the public may see the truth about the anti-doping process. It presumes athletes are guilty, the science is questionable, and the tests in some cases are just plain unreliable. Again, they wind up losing credibility. They may get their man, but they may damage themselves irreparably in the process.
  • Third, regardless of the outcome of the Landis case, the public may clamor for a more balanced and fair process. I just read a press release from USADA about an athlete who is being suspended for a year merely for failing to show up at doping control after a race. Certainly, someone who’s found guilty of doping should be punished. But the punishments seem overly harsh, especially for first time offenses. Perhaps the NBA has it right, and first or second offenses should be handled a bit more gently.
  • Fourth, knowing the public is watching will put more pressure on the arbitrators to do the right thing. Hearings in private could railroad Landis and we would be (almost) none the wiser.

There’s certainly things for USADA to fear in open hearings, but they should be more concerned with determining the truth and dispensing justice rather than whether they add another notch to the handle of their six-shooter.

Previous post:

Next post: