The Roundup

… Or what the heck has been happening since last I wrote a Rant?

Boy, is there ever a whole lot of stuff going on these days. We’ve got train-wrecks everywhere, but nowhere more stunning than in our financial/economic system. I hate to say it, but I’ve been spending a fair amount of time pre-occupied with the state of the market, the state of some investments, and the state of a few other things (which are stories for another day).

Operacion Puerto the Endless just keeps on rolling, as this article at VeloNews points out. At some point, don’t you think it’s time for the powers that be to either put it all on the table — including the names and allegations against those rumored footballers (professsional soccer players on this side of the pond), tennis players and others. Or, the powers that be need to let it drop and focus their limited amounts of time and resources on actually tracking down and catching the cheats who are operating in the sports world today. Call me a pessimist, but I don’t believe for a minute that the steps taken by the UCI, WADA and others over the last year has completely eliminated (or will ever eliminate) the scourge of doping from cycling or any other sport.

There’s cheaters out there. And they’re pretty creative at times. Doesn’t mean that what they do will work, but just like some folks seek out newer and better ways of training to dominate in their sports (consider how Armstrong and Bruyneel revolutionized things by focusing Lance’s training on the Tour), there are also those who are creatively seeking shortcuts to success.

When will the revelations about Operacion Puerto end? VeloNews tells us that it’s case closed. But if I were a betting man, I’d guess that we won’t stop hearing about OP until WADA’s statute of limitations runs out. Which means 2014, given the eight-year rule currently in place.

And, of course, there’s the back and forth between the Pierre Bordry or the AFLD and Lance Armstrong. Given that one of the criticisms about the whole L’Equipe/LNDD/Armstrong affair in 2005 was that samples stored so long might have, ahem, spoiled, wouldn’t more testing today — as Bordry suggested — be even more likely to have dubious results? That wouldn’t exactly clear the air, would it? And then there’s the question of whether or not enough of the samples remain for testing to take place.

Be that as it may, the reality was that Bordry’s offer was just a trap. One that Armstrong didn’t fall in to. If he agreed, and if the results came back looking bad for Armstrong, that would only strengthen the arguments of those who say Armstrong doped back in the day. Like he’s going to give them an opportunity to do that. I think not. And even if the samples didn’t come back positive, those who are convinced of Lance’s guilt would find an explanation for why the results were what they were. So nothing would really be resolved.

(Historical note: I believe it was Dr. Christiane Ayotte, of the Montreal anti-doping lab, who suggested that Armstrong’s samples stored after the 1999 Tour would not be usable.)

Moving on, Jean-Marie Leblanc recently weighed in on Armstrong’s return to racing.

“But Lance, let’s suppose that you’ll still be competitive in 2009 – and that’s a strong possibility – there is all the same a small problem which is bothering us.

“It’s the side effects that your return will inevitably have on cycling’s image.

“Us former riders generally have respect for winners, but that’s not always the case with the public and above all the media who have heavy suspicions about you.

“The hounds will be let loose, column inches will be written, images repeated, and debate sparked about the one word which has petrified our passion over the past ten years: doping.”

Well, I’m sure that the previous animosity between Leblanc and Armstrong (stemming from Leblanc’s comments in 2005, shortly after the L’Equipe story about Armstrong’s supposed positive test results from samples taken during the 1999 Tour blew up) has nothing to do with what Mr. L is currently saying. Just a concern — one cyclist to another — that Armstrong’s return might refocus the media on doping in our fair sport. Is coverage of cycling that radically different in Europe now? No more stories about doping in cycling? Coulda fooled me. Seems like they surface just often enough so that we never forget. (We’ll get to a new story that surfaced today later in this post…)

Despite his time away from the sport, Armstrong’s name has often been bandied about in connection with past sins. So what, exactly, is going to change in that regard?

And in the midst of all this we’re treated to a side order of young master Jean-Etienne Amaury thrown in. (In case you missed it, the scion of the Amaury clan recently said , “We cannot say that he does not embarrass the Tour de France, …”) Who’s embarrassing whom? Inquiring minds want to know.

Meanwhile, in the last week, filings and other papers related to the lawsuit that Floyd Landis filed in US District Court attempting to vacate the CAS panel’s ruling in his case have become publicly available. We’ve had some discussion on this site, but the bulk of the discussion has been going on over at Trust But Verify.There are enough posts over there that I’m not going to try linking to them all, but this one and this one both have interesting comments. Also, there are a number of interesting discussions about the new case going on between Larry, “m” and DR/Ken. Larry and DR/Ken have participated in the discussions here, too, in case you haven’t been reading all the commentary. Take the time and read all of what’s posted at TBV. There’s much to be found there, beyond just the two discussions that I linked to, above.

It’s certainly been interesting, watching lawyers going through what seems to me a rather serious discussion of the fundamental issues of the case. The first major question in this new lawsuit is, “Does the US District Court have the authority to do what Landis is asking, and if so, under what law does the court have that authority?”

Before the court even bothers to address the other issues raised by Landis’ lawyers, the judge has to determine whether the US District court has jurisdiction. Interestingly, in the way the WADA code and the CAS are set up, the only avenue for appeal of a CAS decision is in the Swiss courts. But as Ken has pointed out here and at TBV, a request to vacate (throw out) a ruling is not an appeal. In that particular instance, none of the issues decided by the CAS panel are being reviewed (which is in contrast to what Justin Gatlin was trying to do earlier this year).

Instead, Landis’ team is arguing that there are fundamental issues and events that denied Landis the possibility of a fair hearing, and because he was not afforded a fair hearing, the result should be thrown out. (Is that a fair summary, my fine feathered legal eagle friends?)

Among the topics being discussed is what law allows the US courts to hear this request. Will it be decided on under the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, or the New York Convention, or both? Exactly which law is applied and how it is applied may determine the outcome of Landis’ request. However the court rules, Larry, “m”, Ken/DR (and at various points EightZero) have all contributed a great deal to the overall understanding of the intricacies of the case.

As simple as Landis’ lawsuit sounds on the surface, the discussion gives me the impression that the reality is far from simple. The court will have some very substantial issues to resolve in deciding:

1. Whether to allow the case to proceed, and
2. If the case proceeds, how the controlling law will be applied to reach a decision

It’s worth noting, too, that we have yet to see what USADA’s response will be to the lawsuit (though parts of their response may well be very predictable). Some of the discussions at TBV may well foreshadow the arguments that USADA will use if/when they ask the judge to throw Landis’ lawsuit out. Outside of the questions Landis’ case raises, there are a couple of questions in my mind.

First, will his case be decided before his suspension ends? Let’s just say I won’t be betting my last dollar on that possibility. While I certainly hope that’s the case, the cynic in me expects that this could drag on for quite some time to come.

Second, will this lawsuit have a negative impact on Landis’ ability to find employment and begin racing again? If the case drags on, I’d expect that Team Landis would seek a ruling that might allow for his return to racing without paying the $100,000 fine up front. The logic behind this? Given an ongoing case challenging the fine and the basis for the fine, Landis should not have to pay up front only to have the money refunded later on.

Also, by forcing him to pay the fine before he can begin racing, USADA and USA Cycling are imposing an additional ban. One which creates economic hardships for Floyd. Should he lose his case in the US courts, there will be plenty of time to pay the $100K. In the meantime, no harm is done to anyone else by letting him start racing on January 30th. (Provided that he does have a place on a team by then.) On the other hand, by preventing Floyd Landis from earning a living, by refusing to issue his racing license once his suspension is over, USADA/USA Cycling are causing financial harm to Landis.

And if they truly want to recover that $100,000 (as I’ve said before) the surest way to do that is to let the man race. We’ll have to see how that all works out.

Finally (as if this hasn’t been enough for one post), there’s the story that Jean C pointed out this morning. The IOC is now going to be testing blood samples for CERA, using what the Times Online calls “a state-of-the-art test, developed at the Châtenay-Malabry laboratory in France.” The Times article mentions Ricardo Ricco and Leondardo Piepolli, as well as Stephan Schumacher have all tested positive for CERA. Apparently recent test results based on samples provided by Piepolli and Schumacher at this year’s Tour have implicated these riders, as well. From the Times Online:

Cera remains in the system three times longer than EPO, making it easier to detect, and the positive tests of Schumacher, the winner of both time-trials on this year’s Tour, and Leonardo Piepoli and Riccardo Ricco, the Italian riders, suggest that Cera’s days as a blood-booster are numbered.

Cycling’s fate is also in the balance. Pierre Bordry, the president of the French Anti-Doping Agency, confirmed that 30 Tour riders are under scrutiny but said that another new test, designed to catch those giving themselves transfusions of their own blood, was on the way. “It is in the process of being put in place,” Bordry said. “It is within our capabilities, but it does not exist yet with precision.”

Despite the backslapping that greeted the latest results, doping is still a significant issue, with each sting proving that the cheats are active. However, having been accused of pulling punches in the fight against drugs, the IOC seems determined to take a lead and has also filed a lawsuit against the coach of Fani Halkia, the 400 metres hurdles gold medal-winner from 2004, asking for him to be prosecuted in Greece.

Halkia failed a drugs test in August but claimed this week that she was “sabotaged”, while George Panagiotopoulos denied supplying her with steroids.

Perhaps these new tests mean that the fight against doping in cycling and other sports is being won. Then again, perhaps not. Interesting that these new results and new stories are breaking well after the events are concluded. That certainly keeps the heat on the athletes, while at the same time keeps the heat off the events and the sponsors. Maybe that’s why it takes so long for all of these additional tests to be completed.

I’ll end tonight’s post here, having already covered quite a bit of ground. Someday soon, I’ll be updating the Afterword to Dope. There’s certainly no dearth of new material to included, given the ever evolving stories coming out of the Tour, the Olympics and even out of Operacion Puerto.