This is the question I keep thinking when I read through the “No Documents For You!” series over at TBV. No, I’m not going to veer off into speculation about the politics and power within the USA Cycling and USADA organizations that AFT has hinted at, and provided references for. I know politics happens within USA Cycling (and before that the USCF).
Every organization has political games that get played out at various times. (I’ll tell you a story about political games within the coaching staff of the USCF during the early 1990s another time — but here’s an interesting tidbit: it involves one of Frankie Andreu’s first coaches.) Moving on.
I’m thoroughly puzzled by the progression at USADA from being willing to provide copies of documentation to flat-out saying, “no we’re not providing anything you don’t already have.” As TBV has noted, it appears to be a gradual hardening of their position. What has me bothered by all this is why they would want to withold evidence that will probably come out in the arbitration hearings anyway.
When this whole saga started in late July, I was quite concerned that Floyd Landis would not receive fair consideration in any proceedings that would be held. When USADA became part of the story, their behavior seemed to be much classier than that of the UCI, WADA or LNDD. They at least gave the appearance of attempting to treat Floyd in a fair and impartial manner. At least, they did until they summarily rejected Landis’ request to dismiss the case.
Granted, the request for dismissal was probably a long-shot to begin with. But the documents that we’ve seen clearly show that the Anti-Doping Review Board (ARDB) had prepared a boilerplate document days ahead of the official meeting in order to notify Landis of the rejected request. And whoever prepared the document forgot to put in the date of the meeting — the fax document sent was dated several days before the meeting took place.
So the outcome of the ADRB meeting is very likely to have been pre-ordained. Perhaps there was a similar document prepared that would have said the opposite — that the request for dismissal had been granted. Maybe they just wanted to be prepared so the decision could go out as quickly as possible. Maybe. But neither document would take so long to produce that creating it after the meeting and then sending it out to all the interested parties would take that long.
So if that outcome was pre-ordained, what else might be, and why? Well, this case is certainly a political hot potato. I suspect that given the politics within the anti-doping community no-one wants to be the organization that let a big fish go. Hard enough to hook one. Letting one get away would be a huge black mark.
Floyd is certainly a big fish, if for no other reason by virtue of winning the Tour. And to admit that this has all been some tragic mistake just won’t happen. Too many people have gone too far out on a limb (Pound, McQuaid, LNDD, Christian Prudhomme and the whole motley crew) to be able to climb down from the tree and still save face. So rather than a quest for truth, justice and the American way the anti-doping authorities are focusing on getting a win. The truth? Novel concept, that. But their behavior certainly suggests that they’re not really interested in finding out what the truth is.
To go from “yes, we’ll give you the documents we get” to “you’ve got all we’re going to give” is a sea-change in USADA’s handling of the case.
Witholding evidence from the defense is a serious matter. The only reason I can see as to why USADA would do so is to limit the Landis side from preparing an adequate defense, in the hopes that this will make their own case before the arbitration board more solid.
Of course, it could backfire, too. If Jacobs can show that the information was purposely witheld, and that the information could help exonerate his client, then perhaps the arbitration panel would rule against USADA at the arbitration hearing. There could be some very interesting ramifications should this be the case. Wouldn’t that put the burden of proof back on the anti-doping organizations, rather than on Floyd Landis when the case goes before the Court of Arbitration for Sport?
That would be significant, because right now the question is (as Lance Armstrong so aptly put it): How do you prove a negative? If the burden gets thrown back on the anti-doping agencies, then it becomes: How do they prove a positive? That, in my estimation, gives Landis an edge. No guarantees of anything, but at least an edge at the CAS.
So what conclusions can we draw from USADA’s behavior? Well, we could talk about political connections and so-and-so being out to get Floyd for some real or imagined snub. At least one of the powers within American cycling (Lance) is said to be contributing quite a bit of money to Floyd’s legal defense efforts. (I don’t have nearly as much to offer, but tell me where to send a donation and I’ll be more than happy to, as well.) So the idea that some may believe that the powers are out to get Floyd doesn’t wash, at least for me.
From my perspective, it appears USADA is more interested in making sure the big fish doesn’t slip off the hook and they are less interested in determining what really happened and why. If they’re really interested in determining the truth, what harm would there be in releasing the additional documents Landis’ lawyer has requested?
In essence, what they’re doing is cheating (by witholding material that is pertinent to the defense) in order to win. Isn’t that a fine bit of irony? For USADA to “win” when the accused is innocent is a perversion of justice, to say the least.
