Landis USADA Arbitration Panel Splitting at Seams...

by TCWriter on May 10, 2007 3:34 PM EDT Comment 10 comments

The arbiter picked by Landis in his USADA doping case is claiming he was excluded from deliberations over a key decision in the case (eerily similar to Landis' representative being excluded from key tests at the French lab).

The following comes from a blog entry citing multiple sources.

Looks like the anti-doping agencies shoot their credibility in its bullet-riddled foot yet again...

Blog entry about Landis case with many links

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

With the all the insane hyperbole

surrounding the case, it is hard to know what to think.

Floyd's camp and supporters are trumpeting this as an example of drumhead trials and how their rights are ignored every step along the way.

The panelists defense was (and I'm paraphrasing from the DP forums) something along the lines of we were clarifying a decision the other panelist dissented from. It doesn't make sense for someone who didn't write and doesn't share an opinion to clarify it, now does it?

I don't discount the concept that there was something not quite right going on, but after every smallest insignificant detail is re-framed as Teh biggest violation of human rights e-vah! by the Landis defense, I'm going to need outside confirmation before I allow myself to be emotionally moved by a vigorous PR campaign.

Until there is external, neutral confirmation, they still protesteth too much.

Brooklyn Chewing Gum: Vlaanderens Mooiste

by Koppenberg on May 10, 2007 3:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

"Teh biggest violation...e-vah!"

Hilarious!

The LA Times article which "broke" this story (to the extent it is a story) interviewed some arbitration experts who at least seemed to agree that this behavior is unusual.

After reading the interview with USADA head Travis Tygart in Velonews in which he expressed a sincere desire to avoid these technical traps, this situation seems even more surprising.

by humboldt on May 10, 2007 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where does the burden lie....?

I view this case from a traditional perspective; the methods of those doing the prosecuting should be largely above question.

Instead, I'm forming a picture of a largely stacked, non-transparent anti-doping process where organizational leaders have mounted PR campaigns far more damaging (Nazi Frogmen anyone) than Floyd's.

Too many of the organizations after Landis simply have a strong vested interest in a "conviction."

In that atmosphere, it's critical they follow every process to the letter -- something they've managed to not do every step of the way.

Protesteth too much? I think most of the cycling world isn't protesting these lapses nearly enough...

This Post Brought to You By Hennie's Hordes:
We're not one of the other VDS teams

by TCWriter on May 10, 2007 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mostly agree

BUT! The bucket of cold water is, are doping offenses so difficult to confirm that we have to give prosecutors the benefit of the doubt? If so, that doesn't support the shady behavior we've seen on their part. Ultimately, even if they have a difficult case, transparency is the only way we can believe them.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris... on May 10, 2007 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The authorities seem to think

they should do everything they can legally get away with to ensure a conviction. They don't see any value in making their process look fair or legitimate.

The issue behind this freezing-out-the-third-arbitrator dispute illustrates this point. The issue is whether WADA/USADA, as the "owner" of the samples taken from Landis at the TdF, can do whatever they want with those samples without allowing Landis to observe or verify the accuracy of the tests.

I suppose that legally if the sample is their property they can legally do what they want with it, but they are doing great damage to cycling as a sport by not only ignoring the ideals of fairness and openness, but blatantly laughing at the idea that their process should be fair and open.

by socal on May 10, 2007 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You very well may be right

I should repeat that more often. You may be right.

I just can't help feel that there is a huge attempt to frame the issue away from PED use and the evidence available and shift the media focus to put the USADA and LNDD are on trial, not Landis.

It may be that they have a case that WADA approved labs can't be trusted to do dope tests and the USADA can't be trusted to enforce rules. If they can make that case, Floyd should walk.

I just can't get around the apparent misdirection being attempted. One side has chemical evidence apparently backed up by the most recent IRMS tests on the B samples showing the presence of exogenous testosterone in samples. The other side raises a high-holy stink when the authors of an opinion didn't consult the dissenting view when clarifying what that opinion was. Or one side raises a high-holy stink when the lab staff enforce an agreement about equal access to observations.

This is a judgement call, but my read is that the defense is looking for a magic bullet a la Landaluze. Thus everything that could potentially be construed as out of order is trumpeted in the press as an egregious violation of truth, justice, and the American way. Try that enough times, maybe one will stick.

If the USADA muffs the case, Floyd should walk. I just caution to be very, very cautious of defense attempts to move the issue away from the chemical contents of Landis' urine and reframe it on whatever procedural detail they can spin as a magic bullet to end the investigation.

Brooklyn Chewing Gum: Vlaanderens Mooiste

by Koppenberg on May 10, 2007 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lots of interesting stuff there

Thanks for that link, a lot of the links on that page are also worth a look.

This stuff is like peeling an onion, there's more to find on every layer.

Here's one item that caught my eye. The emphasis is mine.

Joe makes reference to some of Basso's "extraterrestrial" performances by pointing to Ferrari's blog about them. Ferrari is fond of using the "VAM" measurement, being vertical meters/hr as a rate of climbing. During Basso's amazing stages at the Giro last year, he climbed at 1775 m/h and 1820 m/h, dropping Salvodelli, who was at 1642 and 1670 m/h on the same climbs. By way of comparison, on Stage 16 when Landis was dropped, the leader's group was climbing at 1392, 1500, and 1470 m/h on the last three climbs. On Stage 17, alone, Landis did the last climb at 1637 m/h, less than what got Salvodelli dropped by Basso at the Giro. One wonders how fast Sastre was going, because he picked up 2:00 on Landis on that climb (only to lose it back on the descent).

by socal on May 10, 2007 4:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The case can't be about performance

I still don't see how his alleged offense affected his performance. He may be guilty, and maybe that even goes to his ability to recover from day to day. But on the road, he won with strategic attacks, which were only necessitated by having blown up on the Joux-Plane.

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just saying he didn't race invincibly like Basso did in the Giro.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris... on May 10, 2007 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

why only the superstars?

You have to admit that it is unlikely that there are only a "few" dopers in the peleton. Common sense suggests that they are "all" "doping" to some degree. But why are only the "superstars" being subjected to this kind of scrutiny.

If truth be told and all offenders prosecuted, there wouldn't be many, if any, riders left in the peleton.

In the end though I have to tell myself to shut up and ride.

Podium Cycles Where it's more than just a bicycle www.podiumcycles.com

by podiumcycles on May 11, 2007 5:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs