BREAKING: Landis Appeal Denied; Tour Title Forfeited; 2-yr Suspension!

by johnw on Sep 20, 2007 2:46 PM EDT

3-man arbitration panel rules that cyclist used drugs to win 2006 race. Links:

[editor's note, by chris] Apparently the decision centers on the panel's belief in the reliability of the tests, notwithstanding Landis' effort to discredit them (and with no regard to the various sideshows, e.g. LeMond/Gheohegian). The decision was reportedly 2-1. Expect ASO to name Oscar Pereiro the winner of the 2006 Tour de France within hours. And expect the Landis people to appeal within hours as well.

Update [2007-9-20 15:21:3 by chris]: VeloNews checks in, with some initial reactions from Landis & McQuaid. Appeal may be more than he can afford??

Update [2007-9-20 16:13:55 by chris]: Pereiro named the winner.

Update [2007-9-21 0:54:9 by chris]: ESPN's Bonnie Ford offers in-depth analysis of what the verdict means.

Tweet Comment 50 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Look like he might have a pretty strong case

to build on with an appeal. I do not think that the wording of: "If such practices continue, it may well be that in the future, an error like this could result in the dismissal" of a positive finding by the lab., makes a very good case for them. It seems to me as if they are saying that given the same case later they would dismiss it. Not a very good argument for guilt.

Los Cabra Montesa's

by Clydesdale on Sep 20, 2007 2:04 PM EDT reply actions

I read that statement differently

I read that statement as the arbitrators saying that if the lab keeps screwing up, they might dismiss a future case as a sanction to the lab, in the way that criminal cases are sometimes (rarely, though) dismissed as a sanction for prosecutorial misconduct. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the likelihood of the guilt of the particular defendent.

It's interesting that the msnbc story says the two-year ban is back-dated to January 30, 2007, rather than to the end of the 2006 Tour. I wonder what that's about.

Eleven Nation Army: Ready to get rich off the other teams' lunch money

by Susie Hartigan on Sep 20, 2007 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Huh?

why on Earth would they set it at Jan '07? I don't see any basis for that.

I think the fact that he got one vote is significant; it'd be interesting to hear from the dissenter.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris Fontecchio on Sep 20, 2007 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions

I wouldn't trust that date yet

The press has been known to get things wrong before...and McQuaid said it probably be July 2006.

by ghisallo on Sep 20, 2007 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions

1 vote:

Doesn't the defense appoint one of the 3 arbitrators? I thought one of the complaints against the arbitration set up was that the 3rd arbitrator, supposedly neutral, always votes w/ the prosecution.

Brooklyn Chewing Gum: Vlaanderens Mooiste

by Koppenberg on Sep 20, 2007 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Yep

I'd guess it was Landis's pick who voted nay. I'm forgetting his name, actually - was it Campbell? Or was he the ADA pick? Geesh, it seems like forever ago that I actually paid attention to this thing.

by Jen See on Sep 20, 2007 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Campbell

The dissenter was Campbell; He was not only the Landis pick on the panel, but also the dissenter in the Hamilton case.

by Jen See on Sep 20, 2007 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions

One of the links said

that the January 2007 date was when Floyd submitted a voluntary non-compete statement. Seems odd. Wasn't it pretty clear before then? I mean, no team and all?

by NE Observer on Sep 20, 2007 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm beginning to wonder

if this wasn't a deal cut with the authorities. Arguably he could backdate it further. And arguably he could be dinged for that NORBA event. To me it says Floyd isn't planning to ride the Vuelta anyway.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris Fontecchio on Sep 20, 2007 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Yep

Almost certainly a deal, yes.

by Jen See on Sep 20, 2007 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions

What's the deal?

I must be missing something, because I don't see what deal he could be making. What's he providing? What's he getting in return?

by johnw on Sep 20, 2007 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions

July v. January

The Landis side would want the suspension to start at the time of the offense, July 2006, which would allow him to return to racing in July 2008. The ADA could take a strict view and call for the suspension to start at the time the decision is rendered, September 2007, which would not allow him to race until the end of the 2009 season.

In the actual decision, they split the difference and went for January. The official reason for January is that he officially "voluntarily withdrew" from competition. But he was suspended by his team from the time of the B sample coming up positive; if the ADA felt generous they could have credited him with time served since August 2006 (or whenever exactly the B sample was tested.) They chose not to, but they also chose not to impose the strictest penalty, which especially given the Leadville appearance they could very well have.

Not sure how the bargaining went on this, but it's not unusual in these cases for the suspension to end up having slightly wacky begin/end dates, and some goofy math to be involved (I'm still not sure how they figured the Basso suspension). Perhaps Landis has waived his right to appeal in exchange?

I haven't read the decision, so perhaps the details are explained in there somewheres.

by Jen See on Sep 20, 2007 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions

After the Hondo debacle

I've given up trying to understand suspension dates.

Brooklyn Chewing Gum: Vlaanderens Mooiste

by Koppenberg on Sep 21, 2007 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Wise choice, my friend

That Hondo thingy was a mess, for sure.

Since the process of reaching the decision is one of compromise and negotiation among the arbiters, the results are never going to be uniform across cases. An agreement to consider this or that detail and discard another only makes sense within the context of their internal negotiations and trade-offs. The start/end date of the suspension is one of those trade-offs.

by Jen See on Sep 21, 2007 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Dunno 'bout the date

All the reports I've seen have it that way, the ban running from Jan '07-jan 09. I know there's some discretion on the part of the authority types as to when the ban starts and whether they count "time served." This seems like they split the difference - Jan 07 gives him six months or so of "time served" from this year, but takes away about six dating from the '06 Tour. They also have the discetion to discount "inactive time," the months that a rider would normally not have raced anyway. There always seems to be some funny math involved in these things in any case.

by Jen See on Sep 20, 2007 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions

hard to understand

why it took that long.

Is an appeal to the CAS is done on paper, or do they actually go argue this whole thing again?

-K-

by KevinK on Sep 20, 2007 2:18 PM EDT reply actions

Good god

I hope not. I'm sure there's oral argument, but I doubt there's de novo review of evidence. That said, I dunno.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris Fontecchio on Sep 20, 2007 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions

They do it all over again

it's a brand new hearing. At least that's what I've been led to believe.

by ghisallo on Sep 20, 2007 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions

ahhhhhhhhhh

let's hope that's not the case.

By the time that's done with, the suspension will be over.

-K-

by KevinK on Sep 20, 2007 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes...

It's a do-over in the next round.

Here's hoping it doesn't go there...

by Jen See on Sep 20, 2007 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions

lame

the ruling states that they threw out the result of the T/E ration test because it was done incorrectly. but they still believed the result of the IRMS which is a far more complicated test. seems strange reasoning, to still believe in a lab that can't do a T/E test right. despite this, I do think FL was doping one way or another as his haematocrit went up during the Tour. That is not normal is any way, the only reasonable way someone's haematocrit can go up after such extreme lengthy exertion is with some type of artificial help.

C.F.A.

by Lili on Sep 20, 2007 2:39 PM EDT reply actions

It seems odd

That if the T/E ratio test was invalidated that the evidence gathered from it would be admissible. If this were a criminal case wouldn't this fall under unlawful search and seizure? The basis for running the exogenous test was the T/E test and that was called into question.

by australopithecine on Sep 20, 2007 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Ah

the fruit of the forbidden tree, or something like that?

Of course, Cyclists don't have a right against search and seizure in the form of drug tests. This is no more extreme than a surprise out-of-comp test. It may be that the Tour shouldn't accept the results since they didn't come from the Tour's own official lab work, but it was from a subsequent test and from a sample taken during the Tour. By the same token they could test Lance's b-samples from 1999, if it was somehow scientifically credible to do so.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris Fontecchio on Sep 20, 2007 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't disagree

That the out of competition test is the ultimate in a loss of normal rights to privacy, but it is one that is understood and signed on for. The test being run on a faulty premise is more of a chain of evidence issue that I would appeal on. It matters not what was in there if you were not supposed run the test. It would have been much better if the exogenous test was the normal first test protocol instead of an ever fluctuating ratio. Too bad it costs too much.

by australopithecine on Sep 20, 2007 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Yep

all the more evidence why Cycling needs a single, unified system. Maybe under a central body they could get control of the testing methods, bring the cost down? Talkin out of the patootie here, but it's not working well on a scattered basis.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris Fontecchio on Sep 21, 2007 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions

I totally agree

by australopithecine on Sep 21, 2007 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions

Sastre...

So Sastre gets onto the podium, ex post facto...

-Greg

by gregm on Sep 20, 2007 2:48 PM EDT reply actions

I doubt

he'll pop the champagne over that.

-K-

by KevinK on Sep 20, 2007 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Difference in tests

My feeling is that in a "normal" court of law Landis would have probably received the same treatment. I sat on a DUI jury trial once. There were two charges: Driving under the influence, and driving with a BAC of .08 or above. We found the defendant guilty only on the .08 charge and let him off on the other one, but his sentence was going to be the same if he was convicted of one charge or both charges. And the field sobriety test is easier to implement and less complicated than the .08 test. So the less complicated test really didin't have any bearing on the final sentence.

by NorCal on Sep 20, 2007 2:49 PM EDT reply actions

Kangaroo Court

The ruling sounds like a clumsy attempt at rough justice.

The majority concedes that the T/E test is inadmissible and cannot be used to prove a doping violation, and states that LNDD is sloppy, yet they use a different test result from the same sloppy lab to hang a doping violation on Landis. In other words, "We know circumstantially that he is guilty of something, just give us a few extra weeks and we'll figure out a way to convict him."

The result is appalling even though it would be difficult to believe that Landis raced the TdF clean.

by socal @ Podium Cafe on Sep 20, 2007 2:51 PM EDT reply actions

Seems fair to me

You've been listening to too much of the FUD coming from Team Floyd. Just because the lab screwed up on one test doesn't automatically mean that they screwed up on the other. Saying "but that one is harder to do" is meaningless; you need to point to actual areas they screwed up in. The lawyers didn't even go there, so I assume that they couldn't find any genuine areas of attack. Instead they stuck to innuendo and smear which the arbitrators have rightly ignored.

by Monty. on Sep 20, 2007 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Forget the hired guns' arguments

and just read the conclusion of Campbell's dissent. What he says there is exactly right. The WADA process is "a race to the bottom of scientific reliability so convictions can be easily obtained."

by socal @ Podium Cafe on Sep 20, 2007 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Pereiro

The new 2006 TdF champion Oscar Pereiro is a man of unquestionable integrity and character, just like his teammate Valv. Piti.

by humboldt on Sep 20, 2007 2:52 PM EDT reply actions

Wow

I give you our comment of the week, department of mass depression.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris Fontecchio on Sep 20, 2007 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions

oh well.

Floyd will come back on a continental team and kick ass again.

The question is now: Valverde- will he or won't he?

Hardly ever agreed with McQuaid, but I got to say he nailed it on the head with his offer to Valverde.

Racing for Victory and Free Beer!

by DemonCats on Sep 20, 2007 3:00 PM EDT reply actions

on the matter of the appeal

I think FL's been pretty up front about his money situation for most of this effort. He funded the lawyers from his pocket at first, managed to raise enough to cover this round, and that's about it. I suspect that the choice now is to fund the appeal from his savings (which I'm guessing would probably be consumed by it) or say screw it, and start thinking about how to make a living (but without the pressure of needing to make $$ asap).

by Sui Juris on Sep 20, 2007 3:38 PM EDT reply actions

If they go with the July 2006 date he would only

have another 8 months to go. Might as well start in on training and land a Conti job by mid year next year.

Los Cabra Montesa's

by Clydesdale on Sep 20, 2007 3:48 PM EDT reply actions

Trust but Verify has the docs (linked above)

For anyone interested, you can get to the actual opinions of majority and dissent on Trust but Verify, linked above. Chris Campbell's is easy to read but the majority will take some time.

by Ron... on Sep 20, 2007 4:10 PM EDT reply actions

See the original post at the top

by Ron... on Sep 20, 2007 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Suspension runs until January, 2009

Velonews now has a link to the actual decision. I only read the last page, assuming that the explanation of the suspension dates would be there, and it was. Apparently, Landis filed a "declaration of voluntary non competition as of 30 January, 2007."

The panel "rejected" the submission that Landis voluntarily accepted a suspension as of August 5, 2006, when he was fired by Phonak. They don't say why they rejected it (or at least, they don't say it on the last page, which was all I read).

Eleven Nation Army: Ready to get rich off the other teams' lunch money

by Susie Hartigan on Sep 20, 2007 4:16 PM EDT reply actions

non-competition

A simple - and probably simplistic - answer to the non-comp thingy? That he didn't renew his license when it expired, and that provided the basis for the decision.

As a side note, last I checked, Leadville was a Norba/USAC sanctioned event. A strict reading of the rules would date his suspension from Leadville, since he wasn't exactly "non-competing" when he showed up there...

by Jen See on Sep 20, 2007 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions

If FL was unlicensed when he rode Leadville

then they couldn't stop him from riding there, because USA Cycling has no jurisdiction over unlicensed riders.

If USA Cycling wanted to be mean, though, they could. They got aggressive when Hamilton showed up once at a summer crit in Boulder and raced.

USA Cycling said that they couldn't stop Hamilton from racing there, but that if it happened again, any licensed rider competing against Hamilton would be subject to sanctions. So if Tyler insisted on competing, the race organizers would be stuck with no one other than Hamilton and other unlicensed riders. Hamilton then said he wouldn't enter any more of those races while suspended.

by socal @ Podium Cafe on Sep 20, 2007 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Documents here too

http://www.usantidoping.org/what/management/arbitration.aspx

by ghisallo on Sep 20, 2007 4:18 PM EDT reply actions

Blame Canada!

First it was the French and their Al Qaeda-loving LNDD. Now, evidently it's the Canadians who are against freedom:

The Panel was composed of Chairman Patrice M. Brunet (Montreal, Canada), Christopher L. Campbell (Alameda, California) and Professor Richard H. McLaren (London, Canada).

Guess which one wrote the dissenting opinion in favor of freedom!

by samboo on Sep 20, 2007 4:47 PM EDT reply actions

Off-topic,

weren't we just talking about this the other day?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20890168/

by Ruthann on Sep 20, 2007 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions

even more-- Off-topic,

maybe this man(?) could hysterically defend Floyd, might be worth a try...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc&eurl

by orangekick on Sep 20, 2007 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions

good

if the synthetic substance is there, the man must go to the chair.

any other verdict would have dramatically set back the only year in the history of cycling where real, sustained progress has been made against doping.

next up, mr. valv.piti.

nothing personal. i like floyd and i'll welcome him back in 2009. but it's time to do the time.

by Mr 60 Percent on Sep 20, 2007 4:52 PM EDT reply actions

That $2 Million On Defense...

I question the $2 million figure that Landis apparently spent on his defense.

At a Tour de Georgia news conference after the Stone Mountain stage, when pressed how he arrived at that figure, FL's attorney clarified that the money actually included "estimated losses of sponsorship and endorsement monies."

There's a big difference between spending $2 million and losing out on revenue. I'd like to know the actual amount he spent out of his pocket for his defense.

by Chief Commissaire on Sep 21, 2007 2:41 AM EDT reply actions

Yikes

$2mil, at maybe $350 per hour on attorneys and experts... that's 5,700 hours. Sounds a bit high.

Got a problem? Va fa Napoli!

by Chris Fontecchio on Sep 21, 2007 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions

It is high.

Does seem high. That's almost three years of full time work for someone billing at that (rather realistic hourly) rate. Since the case hasn't been going on for that long, that's multiple people billing nearly full time, which means they're doing nothing else, which I find hard to believe for any law firm or expert consultant. I know there are experts who seem to round up those five minutes they pondered whether or not to print out notes on 8.5x11 or A4 paper rounded up to an hour, but even in the extreme cases it's tough to figure out a way to get up to the $2mil figure.

That must include his own 'lost revenue', else he really should better oversee those who are submitting bills his way.

by jae on Sep 21, 2007 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions