Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Hue - End of Evidence

Parties are arguing over whether the athlete can go last, as required by UCI rule. AAA-CAS rule is USADA, Athlete/USADA.

Young proposes: USADA/Athlete/USADA?Athlete

Suh wants USADA/Athlete

Brunet reads order, and it says each gets an argument not to exceed 90 minutes.

Young says we did it my way in Tyler Hamilton plus they got to put in many "new" arguments.

Brunet invites post-hearing briefs but both parties decline.

McLaren makes the Young request the Order.

They will close today, then.

[more]


Young's closing is not real compelling so far. It is clear they don't like Landis and they are spending the first 5 minutes commenting on his character, reraising the issue of Will and trying to link that to a "win at all costs" theory. The Monkey is wearing a little pair of pants! Isn't he cleaver?

Now he discusses science and all the USADA witnesses have experience in urine testing for testosterone in athletic events but none of Landis' witness have similar experience. Of course, they are not allowed to have the best people testify for them by WADA rule. That seems gratuitous to me.

I'm also concerned about any WADA tech document that limits what material a l;ab is "required" to provide. In my reforms, I suggest the lab should be required to provide everything, including the athlete's own urine, for his/her own testing.

Now Young blames Landis' team for ruining the reputation of Mongongu and Chirpolini when he himself prevented discovery which would have ruled out whatever argument there was and wouldn't have wasted two full days of court time, struggling with on the spot discovery and interpretation. He calls the defense, the spaggheti defense; Throw it on the wall and see what sticks (although technically he mixed a metaphor and said see what sees the light of day). He talkjs of pulling rabbits out of hats and making USADA work. Frankly, I'm getting p/o'ed because this system REQUIRES the hearing to go like this. He's got to get the WADA rules changed or start agreeing to reasonable discoverty to avoid these problems. He's whining and it is unbecoming.

I need some science. Young is wasting my time. I'm stopping, here.

No I'm not, he just brought in the "Young Ruse" to discuss blood evidence and to speak of hemocrit levels-stuff never in this hearing and directed those comments to Botre, for sure.

He's done.

No! Wait! Like Columbo he springs up : One more thing and he discusses a document never brought into evidence to explain how LNDD techs knew it was Landis' "B"sample because Landis sent them a letter. Oh! The Young Gambit! Hoisted on their own petard. A double, Ruse plus Gambit, together..

I'm off my "man crush" because that was not good.

Campbell's on to him. The WADA Omerta.

I like Suh's emotion and presentation. Plus he isn't whining. He takes what he has and makes what he can of it. Young cried about those things but Suh soldiers on.

Interesting theories from Young in rebuttal.

Suh has no response.

Two to three weeks for transcripts.

Proposed Finding of Facts in 1 month?

Then decision? This will be AT LEAST 2 months, maybe more.

Thanks to all.

89 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good for McLaren. Young's way allows for the issues to be better addressed. Sounds like Suh didn't want that.

Anonymous said...

So Bill in your expert opinion how did Suh's cross go? I wasn't personally impressed and thought he was trying too hard to pull a Perry Mason move. So, as always, your thoughts would be much appreciated.
Michael

Anonymous said...

FYI in other cycling doping news, it appears that T-Mobile DS, Rolf Aldag is going to confess tomorrow, according to Bob Stapleton...
http://www.cyclingpost.com/team/article_004722.shtml
original piece
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,tt2m7/sport/weitere/artikel/526/115411/

It could be entirely unrelated, but Zabel didn't start Catalunya today...

bill hue said...

I would have ruled the way McLaren did and he had Campbell agreeing with him so there you go.

To me, the Brenna testimony didn't cut either way very much, nor did Davis' surrebuttal.
At this point and probably for some time, the Panel wants to hear the parties closings to put everything into final focus. watch for botre to play an important role in the deliberation process.

Anonymous said...

Suh probably had his closing mapped out and rehearsed as a block. Now he has to modify it, leave something out and possibly not get to it in responding to USADA/WADA.

He gets the last word, but may not get to make all the points he wants.
pcrosby

bill hue said...

I'd do it as planned except for the final summation paragraphs. I'd add responces flying by the seat of my pants and if i ran out of time, since i qwas last, I'd ask for more-they will give him 5-10 mins i'll bet, as much as Matt Barnett might protest.

Anonymous said...

If you were expecting to be able to listen to your opponent's entire 90 min close and then do your own 90 mins knowing they would get no rebuttal, and then you find out that they will get to hear yours and do a rebuttal that you have to then respond to...all within the same 90 mins, it dramatically changes the way you have to present your close.

If I were Suh, I would shotgun them for about 60 minutes with every possible angle on ISL violations. Then after they spend their rebuttal trying to cover every one of them, Suh can make his real close in the remaining 30 minutes. If they fail to cover one of the ISL violation allegations in their rebuttal, Suh can claim in his closing that they didn't cover because they couldn't.

roadkill said...

Any idea how long deliberation will take?

Anonymous said...

Bill,

Sorry for the ignorance, but please say again what Botre's role will be. Thanks.

snake said...

second to roadkill, how long before we can expect a decision to be announced ? (and i can get back to life outside of tbv ?)

bill hue said...

Botre is the Panels independant expert in this matter. He has been present for every second of the hearing. I expect he will have a rather long session with the Panel in private to answer any questions they may have and to render his opinion. the parties will not know what he tells the Panel nor do they get to examine him. After that/those session(s), I hope the Panel will deliberate in a collaborative way.

bill hue said...

I'm guessing 3 weeks for a written decision.

Anonymous said...

Botre is the "independent expert" advising the panel on technical issues...except he is also a WADA lab director who is bound by the WADA requirement not to badmouth other WADA labs.

MX said...

Any thoughts on why the parties declined the invitation to file post-hearing briefs?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bill hue said...

Anon 2:53
I catch it from all sides! I'm just the messenger.
no briefs = no money or time but no money, mainly

Anonymous said...

wow, that's really unusual to have the Court have its own expert who the parties cannot cross-examine. What if the guy is a total quack, or a WADA hack? I'm no fan of Landis but that really slants the table against him.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe Landis is out of money, seriously. And I wouldn't think USADA is either.

pommi said...

Bill, do you know what happened to the blood sample summary mentioned yesterday, and the potential witness Demise Demir ? It didn't materialize today.

bill hue said...

pommi,
It was flown in and it didn't have anything in it that USADA could use or we would have heard something of it.

Anonymous said...

Bill 3:01,

I was posting that before your explanation of Botre posted. It wasn't intended as a shot at your explanation.

As for the brief's question, I see it this way. Young and the boys are lucky FL ran out of time. If Suh had had more time, he and Davis seemingly could have gone on for a long time taking Brenna and LNDD apart. So the last thing Young and USADA want is to give Suh and Davis another chance to put more info in front of the panel showing how inept LNDD was. Suh on the other hand wants the last word. He wants what he says in the close to be the last thing the panel hears about the case before they begin deliberations. The last thing he wants is for Young and USADA to get a few days or weeks to prepare a response to his close or to the successful rebuttal to Brenna by Davis. I doubt either side is out of money, but both have good reasons for not wanting the other to have any more time to provide info to the panel...especially when they will get no chance to rebut whatever is in the post hearing briefs.

bill hue said...

I hear you.
I have heard money is an issue for both sides. I don't mean to diminish any other decent theories.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of money, hows the FFF doing? Do they post anywhere how much they take in, and from whom?

Anonymous said...

Good call on the urine testing experience line. I am sure Suh will point out that Floyd would have loved to call all the world's experts on urine testing to testify on his behalf, but they are all prohibited from doing so by WADA. Not sure why Young even made the point since it opens the door for an effective response from Suh?

Ali said...

Why doesn't the FFF characterise the 'fascinating monkey' and put its image on a T-Shirt. I'd buy it, just as a momento of this intrusion into my otherwise well ordered life. Perhaps its portrayal could wear Dick Pounds head (that would please a certain Zen disciple).

Anonymous said...

I'm a lab tech, trying to find out if a component is putting out too much voltage. Over 3 volts means the part is bad. I grab a multimeter, hook it to a 2volt supply. Reads 2.02 volts. Hook to 5 volt supply. Reads 5.02 volts. Do the same with another meter - similar results. Read component to be tested - get back 6 volts on both meters. Mark part as bad.

At trial, Fluke scientist says meters haven't been calibrated recently enough. When connected to 2 volt supply, can only be off by .01 volts. My meters are off by .02 volts. Therefore part may be good, we don't know.

Trial says part may be good - BS detector says nonsense, part is bad. Search for truth is often different than can prove in court of law - remember, it IS important whether or not Floyd is a doper. It is ALSO important that he's treated fairly by court. For me personally, I want to know if he's a doper. Minutae not as important to me as the truth.

Anonymous said...

3:32

Apples to oranges comparison. Meters reading voltage are simple instruments...either they read the right voltage or they don't. GCMS machines are incredibly complex. You don't get a simple number back for the parameter you are reading and compare that number to what it is supposed to be as you do with a voltage meter. You get a squiggly line with a bunch of little peaks on it. Your job is to figure out what those peaks correspond to and then figure out a way to quantify what concentration they represent. If the peak is not in the right place, it could be something different. If the conditions inside the machine are variable (i.e. loss of vacuum or changing pressure/magnetic field environment), then the results can change. If the baseline is not linear, the quantification will not be right. If the peak is improperly selected manually, then the area under the peak can change and give an improper quantification. Any single error may only change by 0.5, but the cumulative result of all of them is that you don't know if the result is a 6 or a 1. You don't even know for sure if the number you are getting is for testosterone or something else. Quit trying to make a simple example of a procedure that is exceedingly complicated and for which it is clear the technicians were improperly trained. "Using their experience" has led to their lab having 3 times as many positives as any other lab.

Go back to Occams Razor...which is more likely...that the athletes whose samples are sent to their labs are 3 times as likely to dope?...or that the clear errors that have been demonstrated by FL's experts have resulted in 3 times the rate of false positives?

pommi said...

Young just said in his closing arguments that the blood sample analysis shows increase hemotocrit and hemoglobin levels. hematocrit to be said at 47/48%.

Anonymous said...

Pommi, what's the significance of that?

pommi said...

anon 3:59: no judgement from me here; increased hematocrit levels can be indicative of blood doping.

Anonymous said...

From what I can gather 47/48% is pretty high. Was there any evidenced introduced about this, or is this just something brought up in closing argument?

Anonymous said...

Go back to Occams Razor...which is more likely...that the athletes whose samples are sent to their labs are 3 times as likely to dope?...or that the clear errors that have been demonstrated by FL's experts have resulted in 3 times the rate of false positives?

Yes, Occams razor: Which is more likely - an enormous conspiracy to frame an innocent man, with faulty equipment, omerta, PhDs who lie constantly, half a dozen tests run on different samples at different times all with false positives, and a sinister cabal who refuse to admit mistakes. Or an athlete in a sport filled with doping who tests positive because he doped. Hmmm?

bill hue said...

Young Ruse.... not in evidence and directed at Botre a cheap trick.

bill hue said...

4:11
nice try.

Anonymous said...

Bill,

Interesting that Campbell and Brunet asked about the < .03 linear standard right before closing. Glimmer of hope?

Anonymous said...

Bill, maybe a cheap trick, but more evidence of doping, for those who really care if he doped or not.

Anonymous said...

TbV and it's partisans don't care if he doped - he's their man and they want to see him get off, even if it like OJ

bill hue said...

No its not fair. This is a fair process. It is not fair not to allow any sort of a reply. It is not fair for an attorney to do that. Actually it is not ethical but why let that get in the way of "truth". pathtic.

bill hue said...

4:17
Pathetic as are you, "Roid"

4:15
I still ahve faith in the arbitrators.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect, you can't claim that evidence placed into an arbitration hearing is unfair. Was it fair for a threatening phone call to be made to LeMond?

We all need to remember that this is not a trial, it's an arbitration.

However, if this blood analysis is false, Suh can explain the error in his final argument.

Or are the FL supporters afraid that the test is actually true?

I'm more confused now than I was a few hours ago.

bill hue said...

My problem is two fold. I don't mind the young ruse done during Arbitration that can be repsponded to in arbitration by evidence. to do this in closing, though twice, on something as compelling as a hemocrit and a letter of "introduction, that can't be responded bto in evidence is wrong, with all due respect to you. It is cheating and beneath USADA.

Anonymous said...

anon 4:11

I don't think there is any reason to expect an "enormous conspiracy to frame an innocent man". Simple incompetence on the part of the lab is much more likely to be the explanation. The 300% increaste in the rate doesn't just involve one man, it involves many many samples. Incompetence is much more likely than a vast conspiracy, and Davis made a pretty good case for incompetence by LNDD.

bill hue said...

If cheating confuses you and Landis is a cheater, you should be happy if he is aquitted, even if he does so by cheating or was a cheater in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Bill - correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the blood test data requested by USADA months ago, and Floyd only provided it in the last day or two?

bill hue said...

It was flown in yesterday before the afternoon break. The was all day today to discuss it. There was time to request an adjournment if needed. Young may have comitted an ethical violation as to candor to the tribunal. That's serious.

bill hue said...

Of course, this is arbitration and a lawyer can seemingly do whatever he wants.

Anonymous said...

Anon4:30 - Brenna, Catlin Ayotte etc. make the argument that the data was perfectly acceptable. Are they incompetent as well or part of the conspiracy?

bill hue said...

Which naturally disturbs a Judge when he sees something so serious and not fair. I don't think it is anything. If it was, then more would be made of it Today.

bill hue said...

4:36
There is no conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

Ah, so are they incompetent? Lying? What?

Anonymous said...

4:36,

There doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Conspiracies are by definition secret. Catlin already told us why they are all toeing the WADA line...because their contracts with WADA say that they have to. There is no conspiracy, it is all black and white and in print...if they testify adverse to WADA they risk losing their WADA money.

Anonymous said...

And Bill, please comment on the cycling omerta. How many cyclists have testified against other cyclists in WADA hearings?

bill hue said...

4:40
Are you watching or paying attention to this hearing? The parties are closing NOW. That would be something good to hear/watch to understand their positions.

Anonymous said...

Catlin stated in his testimony he had testified adverse to WADA before. Why would he not do so now? Is he corrupt?

bill hue said...

Joe Papp and Greg Lemond for two. So get off it. Not every cyclist dopes. go after Brad Wiggens with your enthousiasm.

Anonymous said...

Video link is all full - I will watch tomorrow on replay so I can get unbiased version and see it myself; not trust other transcripts. The comments in [] seem pretty biased so I assume the rest of the text is too.

Anonymous said...

Right, and GL and Joe Papp hasvebeen slammed unmercifully here for doing so.

bill hue said...

Catlin never testified against WADA in his life. In Zach Lund he said the rules are what they are and Lund broke them Lund was found guilty. What he said was that the rule shouldn't be in existence and he caught a ton of grief for even saying that.

bill hue said...

4:17
Then leave please.
Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Catlin also said how he was (mis)treated after he made some very minor and harmless testimony adverse to WADA in a minor slam dunk case. How would testifying adverse to WADA in their biggest and most publicized hearing ever come across?

Anonymous said...

Maybe, just maybe, Catlin isn't afraid his funding will be cut off. Maybe he isn't afraid of violating omerta. Maybe he thinks Floyd doped.

cam said...

Bill,

does Suh have to even comment on the Young Ruse since it was so obviously aimed at Botre?

BTW -- Campbell gets my crush for bringing up the Omerta.

glad you finally lost Young.

bill hue said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

After all this, I'm still confused on USADA's role to an athlete. If in the course of an investigation (or arbitration), it becomes evident that an athlete should in fact be acquitted, then is it not the role of USADA to support those true facts and in turn support the athlete? (it seems it should be).
Or does the USADA commit itself to supporting a guilty finding at all costs, regardless of the evidence - meaning is USADA like a defense attorney defending a bank robber that he knows did the crime, but puts forth an innocent argument anyway.

I ask this in true inquiry for all US athlete doping allegations, outside the situation of the Landis case.

bill hue said...

4:55
Suh is in a lose/lose. If he brings it up again, it sees the light of day again. If he doesn't it looks like he has something to hide. There is no evidence to use to counter the "insinuation".
After a 10 day jury, if a lawyer did that, it might cause mistrial. Bad, bad, bad Young!

Anonymous said...

Maybe he does. What does that mean in the grand scheme of things? The lab was shown to be incompetent and Suh is running through the laundry list of things they did wrong right now. Whether Catlin, Ayotte, or Aguilera think they were done wrong has no bearing on reality. Suh is not listing what somebody "thinks" the lab did. He is comparing what the lab technicians said they did in their own words to what they were supposed to have done. He is comparing the cold hard numerical facts as printed out on paper BY THE LAB to what the ISL says they have to do. Whether Catlin or anybody else "thinks" those are ISL violations has no bearing whatsoever on whether they ARE in fact violations of the ISL.

bill hue said...

USADA commits itself to prosecution. Independant counsel was hired to prosecute and there is no choice for them to give it up. WADA Code does not allow that.

Anonymous said...

I am just tired of anyone that disagrees being smeared and besmirched. Catlin is probably a good and decent man. His credentials are excellent. Just because he, Brenna, etc. disagree doesn't mean they are part of a cabal, it just means they disagree. Scientists disagree all the time - that is the nature of their business, it is imprecise. The panel can decide without people's reputations being smeared; that's what TbV thinks is happening to Floyd - don't do it to others in the case as well. Two members of the arb panel have been constantly bashed here as well; they also are probably good and decent men. I just can't stand the hypocracy.

Anonymous said...

I think USADA is contractually bound to carry WADA's case, regardless of their own opinion of the athlete's guilt or innocence. I believe the Omerta that applies to the WADA labs also applies to USADA...USADA is forbidden from helping the athlete fight their case against the WADA.

bill hue said...

5:01
Are you speaking of me or general posters?
Because I can show you 3 posts today where I refused, when invited, to bash the Panel. I have been respectful and have reported and opined positively about them throughout the proceedings.

Anonymous said...

No Bill, the bash the panel quote is not directed at you. You in particular have been very fair to the panel. Lots and lots and lots of other posters on this blog have not done so - the post is directed at them. I for one give them the benefit of the doubt, because I have zero evidence - zero - to suggest they are not fair and impartial.

bill hue said...

Here's the latest:

"I don't want to dampen anyone's expectations. I was a system critic and skeptic coming in. I wanted to see the entire case myself and compare what I saw to the written decision. I didn't expect the hearing panel to allow all Landis' testimony into evidense but they did. I didn't expect Brunet and McLaren to be inclusive of Campbell but I didn't see anything that warranted my concern. I HAVE to keep some faith in the honor of the arbitrators so I will wait and hope what I read in the decision is reasonably related to what I saw, even if I disagree with whatever conclusions are reached."

bill hue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bill hue said...

I have been very impressed by them, in general.

Anonymous said...

I don't think anybody is smearing these guys. I think most people here are properly aware of the incredibly difficult position WADA has put them in by requiring them not to testify adversely to WADA in a trial. That requirement forces them to balance their professional opinion against the very real threat of losing a huge chunk of funding from WADA if they don't toe the party line. In reality, it creates a huge conflict of interest for the witness that should be of great concern to any arbitration panel that hears testimony from WADA affiliated personnel that do not work at the lab where the analyses in question were performed.

I feel sorry for guys like Catlin and Ayotte, because they are in a no win position if they don't agree with WADA. The very best they can do is try to straddle the fence, qualify answers, or dodge the question as Brenna did several times this afternoon. Catlin's example showed that even treating WADA's position with kid gloves by gently disagreeing with a point that would not affect the outcome of the case would result in a harsh response from WADA. They are in a tough position because of WADA's omerta requirement, and no assumption of conspiracy is needed to justify concern or skepticism of their testimony.

Anonymous said...

Folks like Caltin and Ayotte aren't in a no win situation, and they don't have to straddle any fence. Please correct me if I am wrong - no one forced them to testify, did they? They testified because they thought Floyd was doping. Or do you think their testimony was coreced somehow?

bill hue said...

They could not be subpoened or talked to by Landis by WADA Code. They were subpoened by USADA permitted by WADA Code. Suh is speaking to it now. Campbell asked Young about it.

cam said...

Joe Papp = USADA's andrologist

LOL!

Anonymous said...

Sure, they could turn down the request by WADA to testify on behalf of USADA. They could also pull out a box of matches and build a bonfire with their $1,000,000+ in grants from WADA. Refusing the USADA subpoena to testify would have been seen and reported by the press as taking Floyd's side in the case. They had no choice if they wanted to continue their relationship with WADA.

Anonymous said...

Right - so omerta might lessen the quality of Floyd's defense (because Floyd could not call a WADA dr. who thought he was clean), but it has no effect on USADA's case - their witnesses testified voluntarily. I am disappointed in the first, since the drs that know the most about doping are not going to ever be able to be used by the defense. That is my opinion is wrong, and needs to be changed. But to slam the drs who testify for USADA in this case is wrong as well - they are entitled to their convictioons and opinions, and should be able to testify to them.

Anonymous said...

Ah, so Anon5:24 does indeed believe there is a sinister cabal forcing the docs to testify.

Anonymous said...

Where did I say that? I said WADA would view their refusal to testify as expressing lack of confidence in WADA's case...which is prohibited by their "code of ethics". So if they want to avoid the Catlin treatment, they can't refuse the subpoena. Keep in mind...they didn't "volunteer" to testify...they were subpoenaed by USADA. I don't believe they were "forced" to testify...I believe they had the option to choose between 1) continuing to enjoy the monetary support of a relationship with WADA or 2) refusing to testify on behalf of USADA. No force involved...just a REALLY tough decision to make if you think the LNDD was sloppy.

Anonymous said...

OK, so Catlin, Brenna, Ayotte didn't have to testify, they just had their arms twisted a bit. And they have all stated they think Floyd doped. Were their arm twisted to say that as well? Did they believe that? Were they lying? Now you are questioning their credibility - or are you saying they believe Floyd was a doper, but didn't want to testify to that fact and were forced to? Are they liars? Please help me here.

Anonymous said...

I think they said what they believed. I don't doubt that some of them may think Floyd was doped, regardless of what the lab findings show. That is fine...they are entitled to that opinion. Ultimately though, the question to be answered at this trial was whether there was enough evidence that Floyd doped to justify a sanction. In the case of the lab data, all of the experts were careful in their selection of their words. In The case of all except Brenna, I think they testified that they thought LNDD did good work, but I am not sure that they had the access that Davis and Brenna did to all of the data and QC packages to really justify that belief on their part. In the case of Brenna, he clearly did not tell the truth in his earliest testimony regarding the quality of the QC data and whether the analysis met the ISl requirements. Whether that was intentional or not, I have no opinion...but it was exposed under direct examination and with evidence in the trial that his early testimony was incorrect. He was obviously very careful in his rebuttal testimony to either dodge some of the questions or to carefully qualify his responses when Young tried to pin him down on some of the controversial topics.

Do I think they lied...no. Do I think they carefully chose words to avoid expressing lack of confidence in LNDD, absolutely. Do I think they honestly believe Floyd doped? Sure they do. Do I think this trial provided enough evidence to prove that Floyd doped and to justify a sanction? Nope. Believing he doped...and proving he doped...are two very different things. I am sure everybody at WADA and USADA believes he doped...that isn't the point and is irrelevant to the trial.

Anonymous said...

Fine then. As long as we agree that the drs expert, uncoerced opinion was that Floyd dopes, and that they are honorable and decent people, we have no argument. Just as we agree that in Amory, Herr Doktor, and Davis' expert, uncoerced opinion, Floyd may or may not have doped - we can't tell since the data is faulty. And that they are also honorable and decent people. Nobody is out to get anybody, and the fair and balanced panel will weigh the evidence and come to a just conclusion, that we may or may not agree with.

To be frank, I went into this trial thinking it was a kangaroo court, that international cycling hated americans and were out to get Floyd, and that he had no chance. I cheered like hell when Floyd pulled off stage 17, and was very disappointed to learn of his postitive test. I reflexively thought he was getting the shaft. I was ready to spot bias from the panel every where I looked.

After watching almost all of this proceeding, I don't believe a lot of what I believed going in.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:57

Like you, I've read just about every word on this blog since the hearing started (plus the UCI and WADA codes). Unlike you, I didn't feel that any bias would be anti-American, but would be institutional due to the WADA rules. I still believe the deck is stacked against the athlete and that reform is essential if a "search for truth" is more than the flowery language of functionaries. This case is of profound importance to any elite athlete in any sport.

With respect to the case, the ironic thing is that IMHO the most damning evidence against Floyd was provided by Floyd himself (and Will) during the course of the hearings. Lemond's testimony could have been a "he said, she said" issue, but for the stupid call, and the wearing of black. Lemond didn't say Floyd confessed, but the call and the attire gave credence to his words.

The science got confusing and I thought of Emmett Brown from "Back to the Future" in his tin foil chapeau. This isn't an EPT; it comes across as a kludgy, cantankerous brute-force triumph of man in the pursuit of better knowledge. In a few years, it will be LNDD, er, idiot proof (if they shell out for new computers and software more often than every 20 years).

As to whether sufficient error was found at the French lab to overcome the presumption that their work was flawless, I mean, met WADA/ISL standards, I haven't a clue.

Paul

Anonymous said...

I, too, found the whole proceedings very sad. Floyd and his crew tried to make this about character. Then we found some very unlikeable things about Floyd's character.

There is a cliche that says "sports don't build character, they reveal it."

Xflowers said...

I have several questions yet. Why did the prosecution allow Greg LeMond to testify in the first place? What evidence did he offer to prove their case? What would he have testified to had Floyd's manager not made his unfortunate call? Would he still have told the story about how he admitted to Floyd that he had been sexually abused by his uncle as a way to try to get Floyd to admit guilt? And if he was not planning to tell that story, what would he have said? How is his story relevant as evidence to this case? Why has so much attention focused on it on this blog and elsewhere? I think I smell a red herring here. I don't know how else to interpret it. My concerns: there is no way in these proceedings to prove you are innocent. One can only show, if possible, that the lab findings were inept and unreliable. I think the defense did an excellent job of doing that, but at great expense. How may athletes can afford to bring in expert opinion? And what will and has happened to them if this system remains biased and is not improved? Clearly something needs to be done so that athletes, particularly bicylists, are not presumed guilty of doping by virtue of participating in the sport, as some bloggers here have proclaimed. And if an athlete wins, well, that becomes the evidence. I think that is what happened to Floyd Landis. How could Floyd Landis with a bum hip rally in the 17th stage after falling back in the 16th stage. Answer from the skeptics: He couldn't; therefore, he must be doping. My answer: He hydrated like crazy during the 17th stage, knowing that lack of fluids had severely affected his performance during stage 16 AND, and this is a big and. The Peleton miscalculated this one, believing that Landis would burn out and fall back. As a result, they let him get too far ahead. The race is as much about tactics and judgement as it is speed and endurance. And no drug is going to make you smarter.

Anonymous said...

What bothers me is the fact that Lemond seems to know a few intelligence agent techniques, and uses them well. One of the oldest techniques in intelligence gathering is the "I've confessed, now you confess" technique. He was also able to "confess" something without admitting to any wrongdoing - very smart. Whether his story is true or not is irrelevant - certainly no-one's going to investigate it's truthfulness. He acted as both a saboteur and provocateur in this case. Certainly he provoked Landis in many ways. He may have provoked Geoghegan, unless Geoghegan was on Lemond's side in the first place, and is himself a saboteur.

There's a lot of money and power at stake in this hearing. Where there's money and power, there's lying and subterfuge. Landis may well have doped, and is lying about it also.

Either way, I don't trust Lemond to tell the truth ever since his statements about "every Tour winner" since himself, etc. One shouldn't make these statements without proof.

Greg Lemond used to be a role model for me. Now, even if he's telling the truth, he still appears to be a shady blowhard. It's really not surprising that he can't even speak about various things because he's being sued by his "fellow cyclists".

At the same time, Landis should have told Mr. Geoghegan IMMEDIATELY not to let the door hit him in the backside on his way out of town. Talk about someone who looks like a saboteur - I wouldn't ever talk to that creep again for the rest of my life if I were Landis. Geoghegan certainly made him look guilty by association. He and Lemond did a great job of shifting the media's focus away from the facts at hand, eh?

Also, Floyd should have also realized a little quicker that Lemond wasn't his friend. Many people will act like one's friend in order to get what they want.