Thursday, May 24, 2007

Hue - The Judge and His Ethics

I want to bring a reader's questions regarding my own ethics to the forefront so that there is an answer that all can see.


The reader observes:

Lastly, the the Judge - I have to ask - is it ethical for you to be reporting with a bias on a case the whole while that the proceeding was going on? You judged Floyd innocent prior to the full arbitration? I hate to say this, but golly, I certainly hope I'm never in your court. Perhaps I'm just being naive.

And, later,

...same poster as above: I correct myself in saying 'you judged Floyd innocent before the full arbitration?' - I agree that we must assume a presumption of innocence, but this is different in the fact that he was tested and the results indicated doping. That was fact before any of the final analysis was complete. To make snide comments about the prosecution before they've even presented their full case is simply juvenile. Everyone talks about the science, and yet science that isn't in favor of the Landis camp is routinely avoided

Here is my reply:

Thanks for your question.

I, like you, hope never to see you in my court.

Your observations about my judging Landis innocent before hearing all the evidence was incorrect and ignored virtually every post I have ever made, in public, and I have posted everything under my own name. I'm glad you corrected yourself but I must also point out that I have also never judged him innocent, even now. I have stated that that job belongs to others and I will wait to read the decision before I come to any final conclusion. I will publish a detailed analysis once the decision is published.

As to your notion that I was juvenile and snide in my observations concerning the prosecution , others might disagree with you. I think you are incorrect, myself, but that is my opinion and you have yours. Everyone is free to have their own opinion. I proudly stand by the entirety of my work here and elsewhere.

You have asked a question about my own ethics as a Judge. I obtained an opinion of approval from the Executive Director of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission prior to engaging in any commentary concerning this matter and the authority granted contained no limitations.

Apparantly, according to parts of your observations I did not choose to publish here, you think this blog is "out of control" and "became more biased in the desperate hours". Finally, you state that FFF should prove they didn't pay any money to Geoghegan "as the fair thing to do for all those people who have donated so much."

Unfortunately, this blog isn't everybody's cup of tea. You probably should address your additional concerns directly to FFF as we have no authority to respond on its behalf.

Bill Hue


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

You did a terrific job. Thank you very much.

Anonymous said...

I assumed from the admission that "TBV is personnally biased towards Floyd" that Mr. Hue was also. I still think Mr. Hue was and is biased in favor of Landis, but not too much. I think he is trying to be fair.

Laura Challoner, DVM said...

Anon 9:55
We are all biased. No one can check their value system at the door and then hope to still be a human being.You promise to keep an open mind and do the best you can. I agree with and appreciate your observations.

Thanks also 9:46 and 9;28

Anonymous said...

Honorable Bill Hue,

I have read your posts over the past nine days and have found your points of view informative and objective. I have enjoyed the desciptive terminology for verbal and legal tactics throughout the hearing. The praise you have given to the prosecution has been forthright and honest. I have not always agreed to your points, thus confirming your own impartially while exposing my own biases.

Learning theory states it is difficult for individuals to hear and understand views different than those they already hold dear.

Please know my heart felt thanks for your independent opinions during this stressful time.

Do you think the emotional beliefs surronding this case are on par with public opinions during the Scopes Trial? Or is this just another dancing monkey?

Looking forward to your next post.

Poet's Chemistry

Laura Challoner, DVM said...

Hey Poet's,
I was, for a few months, mulling over writing an essay wherin I compare the anti-doping movement to a religion but it never gelled quite as nicely as I had hoped. Your thoughts about the Scopes trial, which I had not considered,has me thinking some more. I had pretty much put it up on the shelf. Now I'll have to revisit it and I thank you for triggering that part of my thinking.
It is probably way too controversial a subject and would also cause many more anti-Bill responses!!!
Thanks for your thoughts and kind comments.

Anonymous said...

Bill, you (or at least TBV) have been very straightforward about your stance regarding this proceeding and have posted it for all to see:


"TBV is personally biased towards Floyd. I think it'll be a better world if he proves his innocence, and some inquisitors meet their own just ends. Interspersed between daily link roundups are pieces of commentary slanted towards understanding what will prove innocence in the discipline proceeding, and what will rehabilite his reputation in the public eye. Make of them what you will. Agreement with me is not required, though I am right."

In no way does this detract from the enormous amount of work that you all have volunteered to produce this invaluable blog and your contribution of insight and evenhandedness (we excuse your "man-crush") that make this forum shine.

This is the only place that a lot of us trust to give us not only the facts, but a breakdown of the details from experts who aren't involved directly but have something of substance to offer, folks on both sides of the fence whose comments are as welcome as your own.

Keep up the good work, and slough off the slings and arrows of anonymous trolls who would turn to stone if exposed to the light of reason.


Anonymous said...

Honorable Judge Hue,

At the risk of incurring a troll attack, I would like to point out the following: In the blogsphere, everyone has a voice if they can type. To date, I have yet to read a post from the pro-UDASA side that was not biased and/or degenerated into namecalling and incurring wrath of deities. Your comments and observations were both insightful and tempered with both an admitted bias and also an open and reasoned thought process. I wish I could say the same about some of the DPF drivel. Sometimes being a voice of reason in an unreasonable situation is extremely difficult. I have read about the Scopes trial (Inherit the wind, and all that), and there are stark parallels between the fervor of dogma and the institutional grip of the anti-doping world. Keep up the great work!


Anonymous said...

I certainly hope that every judge that sits on a US Court has the belief that the accused is innocent and the case before him must prove him guilty. That is the belief in this country. You are pressumed innocent UNTIL you are proven guilty. Mr. Hue was absolutely correct to think Floyd Landis was innocent and USADA would have to prove him guilty ... if this were in a legal court system. Sadly, Mr. Landis was not in a legal court, but in an arbitration hearing that has it's own rules.

Oh, and btw: I found the whole thing very McCarthian: have you or do you know any dopers. Drama over fact. Guilt by association. There's even a blacklist. Asolute power corrupts absolutely. While the intentions are good, unchecked power is a very dangerous thing.

Nancy Toby said...

That was truly a classy response. Thanks again for your perspective. (And restraint.)

I have a question from my non-lawyerly perspective that you might be able to comment on. The whole proceedings seemed kind of peculiar to me in that it started with a presumption of guilt rather than a presumption of innocence. I understand it was an arbitration and not a real court case, but how would this have gone differently if this had been a proceedings in a regular court governed entirely by US law?

Anonymous said...

"I agree that we must assume a presumption of innocence, but this is different in the fact that he was tested and the results indicated doping. That was fact before any of the final analysis was complete."

No, this isn't a 'fact' in the broader sense. It's an allegation, which those who beleive FL dopes treat as fact. Somehow, these allegations have taken on the power of gospel to some folks, who don't seem to understand that smply saying a "result" is "positive" doesn't make it so.

And it's the entire crux of the case. What, EXACTLY, is a 'positive'?

If we want to take the WADA position that a positive is what they say it is, there is no need for hearings such as this. Athletes just put their samples into a black box and take their chances.

If anyone here were, after a traffic stop for a malfunctioning tail light, subjected to a breath test for DUI and the "result" of the test said that you were over the legal alcohol limit, would you simply lay down an accept the legal penalties and public scorn for being a "drunk driver", even though you knew you hadn't had a drop to drink all night? Does the "result" make you a "drunk driver"?

"You judged Floyd innocent prior to the full arbitration? . . . .To make snide comments about the prosecution before they've even presented their full case is simply juvenile."

These are the two most humourously ironic, hypocritical criticisms anyone in the 'guilty' camp could possible utter. Ever.

This Wisconsin lawyer is proud of the work Bill put in on this site. I've never worked in his jurisdiction, and I probably never will, but if his work here is any indication of how he runs his courtroom, I'd take any client or case in there any day of the week.

Anonymous said...

Judge Hue,

I've been a daily reader of TbV since before you became an active member, and my opinion is that you've been fair, even-handed and respectful. You may have been biased toward Floyd, but to me it looked like you placed a high value on the rights of the defendant, guilty or not, and you demanded much from the powers that were accusing him.

I couldn't disagree more with the writer who said you made snide and juvenile comments. I've found your tone to be mature and decent. Qualities that all commenters on this site would do well to emulate.

Anonymous said...

Judge Hue is pretty even handed. He expressed his dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the process as it unfolded. I don't recall any personal attacks from him. He's volunteered to do some valuable work on behalf of any of us interested in reading or following the Landis hearing, at his own expense. The complaining reader missed the mark on several counts.
Jeff from Newark, DE

Anonymous said...

Last night I clicked over to the Dailey Peloton Forum for the 1st time since the Hearing began. For the past 4 months I have been an uncontributing member, but still occasionally read the site.

Here is my question for you (Bill), Dave, & strbuk :

Must one be born with or can one acquire the fortitude necessary to withstand unadulterated vitriol, such as that spewed by the various DPF misanthropes towards not just this blog but to you personally?

The fact that all of you put forth such dedication & hard work to reveal the truth & yet have to endure such garbage, angers me greatly. Please remember that the WORLD knows of your contribution not just to this case but to 21st century "media" coverage of an event & you are recognized as pioneers.

Thank-you so much for your work & I await your Final Judgements.

susie b

Anonymous said...

Sometimes I WAS hard on Matt Barnett. But, Matt knows there was a certain degree of affection (believe it or not!) that came with that. I was Matt Barnett 15 years ago, for about 3 years. So I know what is expected of him and the role her was asked to fill.

Thanks to all for your comments and support. I appreciate the kind words.

Of course, we would start with a presumption of innocence and the disciplining party would have the (single and 1 time) burden of proof.That would be a huge difference. The Code is designed to discipline the doper found to have doped by "failing" a WADA certified lab's determinations on his/her "A" and "B" samples. It is the world I know turned directly on its head.


Anonymous said...


The people who populate that site on a 24/7 basis act as though they "own" it. They are not happy with "others" who do not yield to their world view. I am one who will not.
For those interested, a poster gave my name, occupation and mailing address in an open post there last night and had some rather unkind things to say about me. That is what you get for being who you are. I've been the subject of critism here and elsewhere. It goes with the territory.

I only brought the ethics issue up here because that is very important stuff to someone in my position. Maybe the most important, because when you act without ethics, you lose your moral authority to act with credibility and justice. Once that is lost, your power is meaningless. Seem familiar????


Anonymous said...

Judge Hue said: "I have also never judged him innocent, even now. I have stated that that job belongs to others and I will wait to read the decision before I come to any final conclusion."


These are my sentiments exactly. I too admit to a bias, but it is more one of hope in Floyd's innocence rather than certainty. I also admit to another bias: That the accusing institutions be held to very high standards in methodology and practice. I have seen enough to make me question the fairness of the anti-doping process and I think that may very well be what is really on trial here. Having the hearing public for the first time was a real civics lesson for me.

I appreciated your honesty and am adult enough to identify and even sometimes discount your biases. But your insights on some of the proceedings and lawyerly antics were welcome and entertaining. Above all you seem like a very fair person and you have shown remarkable restraint in your responses.



Anonymous said...

Thanks between rides.
When I was in California, we got to ride nearly every day. You only have to pick a canyon road off PCH and head up. The climbs are both beautiful and challenging. I'll be going back to ride some more soon.

Ken ( said...

@Anonymous 3:49 AM,

RE: pro-USADA posts.

I have seen a few well reason posts by individuals trying to sincerely point out why thy did not think the CoC and procedural errors raised during the hearings did not affect the results. The posts got a little deeper into the science than I could follow so I could draw no conclusion from their post and sadly no one else with the science background necessary picked up on the comments to discuss them.

The trolls have been a problem for everyone and they have seriously hampered the ability of reasoned people who think the test results are valid to argue their case. In short the trolls have hurt the presentation of "their side" of this issue.

To those who are against any form of censorship, I totally disagree. Trolls themselves create a form of censorship by dragging a discussion down to the lowest common denominator and driving away reasonable people (from both sides of an issue) who are willing to have a reasonable discussion. Their comments must be deleted in order to maintain a level of decorum that allows for rational discussion.

Simply look at the level of discussion of most blogs article comment sections of any major media outlet, where the trolls are not censored. They quickly overwhelm the comments and abusively drive away others. This is destructive to a blog like this.

On my blog and forums I run, while I encourage dissent and disagreement I do not tolerate any form of abusiveness. I will delete any abusive comment or post and in the case of my forums will ban repeat offenders. Trolls simply must not be allowed to disrupt any discussion.

Anonymous said...

Judge Hue,

Thank you for your excellent insights and commentary, and for your tireless efforts in bringing the details and nuances of this proceeding to light. I'm pretty sure I'll never practice in your court, but I'd be willing to bet that those who do count themselves among the fortunate. I look forward to your future analysis and comments.


River Otter said...

Judge Hue,

I just wanted to join the other commenters in thanking you (and the TBV crew) for taking the time out of your busy schedule to give your commentary on the trial. I thought it was objective and insightful.

Anonymous said...

I was unable to watch any of the video streams, so I relied on TBV for details of the testimony and was glad to have such comprehensive and fair reports. It's impossible for anyone to read all the reports and watch all the testimony and not form some opionions, but you were fair to each side and gave credit for what each did well.

You're not the judge in this case, so there is no need for you to ignore your own preliminary opinions, but you also kept an open mind and wanted to hear what evidence was presented.

Thanks for helping to keep all of us who couldn't be there informed.

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

Some of my favorite parts of Bill's commentary were his bracketed ones. Fascinating! Thanks for a glimpse into a beautiful mind. And I think it takes a big person to admit having been Barnett a few years back. We've all "been Barnett" in some way or another, on some level, at some time. Win at all costs... :) Here's to evolution in all its ramifications: Cheers! (and heartfelt thanks)


Anonymous said...

Judge Hue,

Your posts, thoughts and opinions have been most interesting and honorable. You've been accountable for all your posts and the content therein. If only other Net posters were as gracious.

A huge thanks to you and TBV for all your hard work. This blog represents the new 4th estate, regular folks providing new, facts, and opinions.

At this point, I don't care about Floyd or his innocence. That is for others to decide. But, someone complained there isn't a pro USADA perspective. Here are some USADA facts that may help explain that.

1) Typically the USADA deals with lab work done by the UCLA lab. The UCLA lab is an outstanding facility and likely the reason the USADA has won every case against athletes. If the Landis sample had been analyzed by the UCLA team, I would have trusted the science.

2) Athletes have rights, just like civilians do. As well, they have responsibilities. Regardless of the outcome of this hearing terrible truths have been exposed in the anti doping establishment:
-Poor training of lab techs
-A bizarre code of silence regarding criticism

At the end of the day this is less and less about Floyd and more and more about the culture of cycling. With teams admitting to doping programs (Telekom) and some of the biggest and most respected riders admitting to doping (Zabel) it's difficult be supportive of riders. On the other hand, with heavy handed tactics like WADA/USADA are pursuing it's hard to respect them either. Dick Pound makes the WADA look like fools. The athletes look like fools. The only people that hate being fooled are the fans. We need drastic changes all around.

Anonymous said...

Judge Hue,

In your response to Poet's Chemistry you wrote:

I was, for a few months, mulling
over writing an essay wherin I
compare the anti-doping movement
to a religion but it never gelled
quite as nicely as I had hoped.

That got me to thinking about how I would approach writing such an essay. I would avoid bringing the comparison to religion into the discussion because that could trigger controversies which would detract from the basic premise that many of the people involved in the ant-doping movement have become "True Believers" as described by Eric Hoffer in his book "The True Believer" (an interesting read that I would recommend to you if you have not already read it). I also think I would draw upon the ideas expressed in Sherwood Anderson's book "Winesburg Ohio" (another good read) about how excessive devotion to a single idea (truth) distorts both the believers and the "truths" they espouse.

I personally believe that the anti-doping movement, whose goals are laudable, has become a problem in its own right because of its excessive zeal and the fact that there are no effective counter balances to its legal, political, and economic powers.

Anonymous said...

Interesting comments about bias. I thought about my own reactions to this case as it unfolded - my initial reactions to the news and to Floyd's responses, and then to the information about the lab's and WADA's practices.

Remember, I am a lawyer. I have been both on the prosecution side and on the defense side, so I don't think I have any particular ax to grind in that sense. What I do hate is unfairness -- and when I get the feeling that the deck is stacked, I'm going to get my hackles up.

In thinking back, I have been "biased" in my reactions toward Floyd's case. I support Floyd. But it is not because I thought he was factually innocent (although I suspect he is) but because the WADA process so clearly violates my sense of fairness. To be blunt, the WADA process mocks the principles of due process, fair discovery rules, and other procedural guidelines for civil litigation (not to mention criminal litigation) that I believe should reasonably apply in a case of this magnitude. And because the scale is so grossly and obviously tilted against the athlete, I find it hard to support WADA or its efforts.

Judge Hue, correct me if I'm wrong, but to the extent there's any "bias" in your writings here, I bet it stems from the same source.

Anonymous said...

Judge Hue,

You are a gentleman and a scholar. I have really enjoyed your TBV postings and appreciate the effort.


Anonymous said...

Hon Hue - Although the arbitration hearing is completed do you think the recent press on Telekom doping will weigh on the Landis outcome? It’s been pointed out we are all humans and there are elements of this case the arbitrators must consider verse press and public option. But certainly these recent admonitions could play into this. It must create a strain on all parties involved in this case.

Anonymous said...

Bill - I stand're not only too cool to be a judge, you're too cool a person. I'd be honored to have you as a friend or acquaintance.

N CA cyclist

MWesty said...

I also appreciate very much what Judge Hue and TBV have done for this case and think they both went about it with complete professionalism. As stated above, as a judge he assumed innocence and tried to let the facts speak for themselves. When he did sound a bit "snarky", (i.e. Young's closing argument attempt to introduce blood evidence) I took it more that he would never let that kind of thing happen in his courtroom...and Judge Hue certainly expressed his respect for all the lawyers, particularly when they got away with something he wouldn't have allowed.

As far as my own opinion in this case I started off with an opinion Floyd could be innocent. I am considerably less sure of that now based on the cases presented and the endless analysis here and on DPF. However, were I an arbitrator or jury member I could never render a guilty verdict given the low confidence surrounding any results out of "the Paris lab".

Mike W.

Anonymous said...

Poet's husband,
Thank you for your reading suggestions and insight. I agree, the religion comparison is way too "hot".

sachi, I think you have hit the nail on the head as to where my bias lies!

Anon 9:38 while those who have a point of view somewhat different than me think I am naive or didn't think anyone doped, that analysis was inaccurate. We all pretty much suspected doping existed and now we are seeing the results of a POLICE matter not an ADA disciplinary matter, turn out truth. To the extent anyone thought no doping occured in the Peloton, the Telecom revelations provide some good and compelling background. I think the Panel knows there is doping and will narrow their inquiry to the specifics of the science in the Landis case and will render their decision on that basis.

Camille, Mike, NCal Cyclist
You guys are so nice to me! Thank You!!

anon 8:26
You are not nice to me and I hope you are not threatening me with your advice that I stay under the radar but I can't please everyone, so I'll take Rick Nelson's advice and just try to please myself.

Thanks to everyone for participating, too and for all your comments and suggestions.

Anonymous said...

Judge Hue,

I won't take up space echoiong the positive comments set out above, but I join in them, particularly Sachi's. I have been an attorney for more than 30 years and found your comments reflected a great deal of time spent researching the (bizarre) structure of the anti-doping establishment, its rules and the gaps in rules. I lurked here for a long time before I began posting and you pretty consistently reminded me of aspects that I had reviewed and forgotten.

The non-attorneys here cannot appreciate the sense of the hearing that you presented. I think some took comments on the attorneys' tactics to be snarky attacks on them. They were not, they were identification of time tested techniques that are used by litigators to advance their client's case, getting away with as much as they can. There was at least one instance where you pointed out that Suh was doing the same thing. The first tie I ever really enjoyed an NBA playoff game was when Bill Russell did the color commentary and started analysing what was happening on the floor and how the other team would have to adjust to compensate. It was fascinating and you added a similar dimension to the coverage here.

I regret tht you had to respond to some troll's attack on your integrity. I never saw anything that caused me to question your credibility or integrity; you maintained an amazingly even hand and interest in educting folks as they found there way to this site.

For those who are late arrivals, expecially those who are just realizing that this proceeding started with a presumption that Landis had doped, I recommend the set of analyses that Bill did early on that give the background of this case. When you read them, remembe that they were written as events transpired, so there are elements of speculation on future events which have now been resolved. Or not.

Finally, Judge, just remember that it is the person who stands up above the others who is the one they go after with the hammer.
With respect,

Anonymous said...

Judge Hue,

You ably performed a vaulable service. I think that the commentary you provided was worthwhile and gave the rest of us some valuable insight into how arbitration works, how it is different different from our justice system and, in my case, a deeper appreciation of what our justice system afords us as citizens. And for all of that I'm grateful (and for all the efforts of TBV in general).

As a judge, I think you were putting yourself out there and taking a risk, and I hope you feel that the experience was worth your time. I would certainly hate to see moral and intellectual cowards like anon 8:26 (not even a handle?) have a chilling effect on this type of experiment. Issuing veiled and anonymous threats in a comments section is a sad and tawdry way to pass the time.

Again, many thanks. I believe this was time and effort well spent by you and the rest of TBV.

Anonymous said...

I think Sachi's comments (9:03 AM) are excellent, and I agree. My personal feelings regarding Floyd's guilt or innocence waiver back and forth. However, I find myself annoyed at the numerous posts and articles I see that proclaim Landis guilty, usually with a statement along the lines of "the tests found exogenous testosterone" or "he still hasn't explained how the exogenous testosterone got there". This is frustrating for a scientist - people need to understand that the test does not look for or find testosterone itself in the urine - it looks for minute amounts of by-products through a number of complex steps. Even if the science behind a test is solid, complex scientific tests can be very error-prone if not performed in a repeatable and precise fashion. Following the necessary steps and procedures, and good scientific practice in general, makes all the difference in whether the results are valid, and whether any valid conclusions can be drawn from them. If this is ignored or overlooked, then this is where pre-conceived bias can slip in.
A personal opinion here: from the testimony at the hearing, I sure wouldn't want my career and reputation staked on the way LNDD's has practiced science in this case. And in my experience, the game of showing that the results are still valid, even though the procedures and good scientific practice were not followed, is a dangerous one and error-prone one. I'd sure never do it for my scientific conclusions. - ELW

Anonymous said...

... and Bill - many thanks for your thoughtful and insightful commentary throughout the hearing. -ELW

Anonymous said...

I have thanked you and TBV a number of times in previous comments for the work that you have done, and I will do so again. One more praise is not too many.

You have been most ethical and mature with your posts.

I made mention once that your posts were like the director’s commentaries of a movie. A better analogy is that you are the informed commentator of a sporting event. I wouldn’t know that figure skater opened too early which was why she failed the jump. I wouldn’t have noticed that player was out of position to allow the other team to score. I wouldn’t know that lawyer bring up that point at this time is unfair.

I am not a lawyer. I completely rely on what you write is true. There are many lawyers reading this site, and I am sure they would challenge you, if you posted something untrue. Some have on minor point which you defended or conceded, but no-one has challenged you on being unethical or unfair.

As for the DPF forum, I have figured out whose posts I will ignore, whose I will skim, and whose I will read. Yours and dbrower, I take time to read.

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

To the 1:05 PM obviously have not taken the time to read TBV which have been balanced from both sides- Shame on YOU!

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

How about a short reprieve on the personal attacks to see if anyone can comment on why the S17 A & B were not tested at UCLA.

If USADA, then they would seek the truth and either drop the case or pursue it with some credibility.

If FL, then back up your claim of innocence by credible testing (not good for the rep to get off on a technicality).

Laura Challoner, DVM said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Laura Challoner, DVM said...

that was directed to anon 1:33,

not anon1:37, who would like to direct us all to a relevant and interesting topic.

Laura Challoner, DVM said...

anon 1:37, Don Catlin said his IRMS machine was broken. but they had 1 in Montreal and Luzanne and Rome. they all were working.

Anonymous said...

Constructive truth:

Today Bjarne Riis confessed to doping in the 1990s INCLUDING in the 1996 Tou de France victory.

The Team CSC owner admitted to hGH, cortisone and EPO.

No mention of Ulrich, Basso or Hamilton.

Baby steps in the war on doping apologies.

Thank you.

DBrower said...

Anon 1:37,

UCLA was down for repairs. I have to take Catlin at face value about that, as they are fiddly machines. How much of a hurry he was to get it back working we'll never know.

Landis asked for the remaining samples to be split, and they were not. There is nothing left to test, as the IRMS burns it up into CO2 and then it is gone. To that degree, USADA burned whatever chance he had to prove his innocence.

There is a lot fuzzy going on regarding the B sample tests, which I hope to write about when I get the chance.


Laura Challoner, DVM said...

anon 1:44
Noted. I agree. Thank you for your constructive post.

Anonymous said...

I fell I must also put in my support of the Honorable Mr. Hue (and I deliberatelly used that not just because it is the usual style for a judge, but because I find all his actions here honorable). TBV makes his personal bias know and be implication, Mr. Hue also. TBV also invited participation by anti-Landis person/people. TBV has repeatedly posted links to sites, blogs, etc., which were unfavorable to Landis, and Mr. Hue in his commentary noted where the USADA side was able to score points, or where Landis' lawyers may have missed.

I have been following the case here since approximately last September, when I became aware of this blog. I have found forums like DPF to be too full of flamers and trolls for well-reasoned agruments to come thru; here I have found links to both sides of questions. The national news media has been almost useless.

I hope that, whatever the final outcome of the Landis case, that this blog will continue as one place where one can come for balances coverage of doping/cycling in the future.

And finally, I will use my full name here in support of TBV, Hue, Marc and Strbuk:

William L. Schart

Anonymous said...

wow, the trolls are unrelenting! But, as the saying goes, you can't win an argument on the internet.

TBV, Hon. Judge Hue, and pretty much everyone who contributed to this site. Thanks!

A note for the trolls. No one here is disputing the recent deluge of doping admissions. People with biases regarding Floyd are being honest about it. LNDD did very poor lab work, look at the science. Floyd's guilt or innocence is not up to us, it's up to the arbitrators. Lastly, I think we all agree cycling needs to clean up. But so does every sport. If only people had this much passion about politics.


Unknown said...

I think if USADA could show more cases with the same results the they got from LNDD. I have a hard time believing that one metabolite shows doping when in most cases it shows up with more than one. BTW Judge you have done an awsome job during the hearings in distilling the information. The only thing I would add is a short index of the players. I have a hard time following who is who.

Thanks a bunch

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Laura Challoner, DVM said...

TBV asked me to update the index and I will do that this weekend.

And TBV desn't ask you guys for or receive money for this blog.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:22 -- I've heard plenty from you to the effect of "cheating is everywhere" -- but what do you think of the lab work from LNDD? Seriously, were you impressed?

Please answer that honestly.


Ken ( said...

wow, the trolls are unrelenting! But, as the saying goes, you can't win an argument on the internet.

No, but admins can delete their comments. Trolls have no desire to contribute to a constructive dialog. They simply crave attention and want to spoil things for others. The best way to deal with them is to deny them a platform upon which to harass others. Simply put there is a reason there is a delete button next to posts for admins.

Anonymous said...

I was more impressed with the lab tech personnel than with the paid Landis witnesses. (hired guns)

The posturing did not pursuade me.

Team Landis did not prove that the LNDD personnel cheated, lied, cover-up, falsified or created false positives of the steroid results. They did correctly show control samples were NOT doped.

Just imagine if we had blood samples or could test for insulin, hGH, EPO micro dosing, blood transfusions, IGF-1 or research drugs?????????

In addition, Landis fought the B sample tests on all his samples and declined to have his B samples split and sent out to another lab. That destroyed his entire science-based credibility defense.

The black tie/yellow tie switch and the Lemond theats (in writing and on cell phone) also confirmed his low-life character traits.

Landis elected not to bring in a steroid expert, masking agent expert or athlete to defend him.

The Landis case was all about putting on a show---without any evidence of French or WADA or USADA conspiracy or lab tampering.

The only tampering was by Landis.

Hence, I expect a vote of 3:0 for a lifetime suspension.

USADA & WADA only problem is that IOC is owned by corporate clients so a lack of funds (BILLIONS) to get all the cheats and their corporate sponsors out of commercial sports is wholly impossible.

Still, a squirt gun took out Floyd in this case due to his own pitiful actions.

LNDD will go on testing unlike Floyd.

Anonymous said...

Anon Rob 2:17

What is shown to be an obvious sham, Floyd's innocence or guilt does not lie, any longer, with the Arbitrators. It is out of the Arbitrators' reach.

Ironically, the Arbitrator's own innocence or guilt of willful misconduct is what is being judged. He is going to pass judgement on whether or not his assessment is honest given that the testimonies were witnessed, by him, in public, by the public.

The Arbitrators are in judgement of their own conduct. Their decision of their own moral, ethical being is being discussed among themselves. Discussions about how phrases, text, metaphors, pictures, graphs, are spun and spun again...or not..., willfully..., to arrive at a decision about their own innocence or guilt of willful misconduct.

Floyd is no longer on trial here. The Arbitrators are on trial due to what is now an obvious sham.

And that decision of innocence or guilt of willful misconduct is what's not up to us to decide.

So, I disagree about Floyd's innocence or guilt is not up to us. It is up to us. In how you think about him when you greet him if you ever meet him in person and/or how you speak of him, that's how Floyd's innocence or guilt will be determined. That determination belongs to us, now. Belongs to the public.

John Q.

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

Dear dear. newbie here to the blogosphere, but I am compelled to comment. I'll start with my bias. I hope Landis did not cheat. And in keeping with the thread, thank you Judge Hue for your dedication and patience to stay with this topic. How much easier it would be to go watch TV. Imho, the real bias is on sites like yahoo and fox sports that have "commentaries" from fair and balanced reporters. I'd dare say that some people out there are threatened by the notion that Floyd is the devil! And here is finally my follow up question: Floyd says he did not take T, Does the LNDD testing fiasco mean there was NOT any exogenous testosterone in his urine? If not, was any explanation for ET given by the FLD?

John Marshall ( could I get a more annonymous legal name?)

Ken ( said...

The character assassination of all parties involved, whether they be the arbiters, the lawyers for USADA, the lawyers for Floyd Landis, Floyd Landis himself or the honorable Bill Hue must stop right now.

Character assassination is nothing more than a race to the bottom and an attempt to drag this very good blog down with it. I'd strongly encourage a much more forceful use of the delete button for any and all posts that attack ANY individual.

All of the attorneys involved in this case (and yes the arbiters are attorneys) have conducted themselves with professionalism and deserve respect. Whether you are for or against Landis does not matter. You should not accuse any of the lawyers of wrong doing, because there is no evidence of this.

As Bill Hue has stated if Landis wins or loses it will be because of the system is designed. If the ruling does not go the way you wanted, blame the system, not those in the hearing room.

If you believe Floyd Landis is guilty and the arbiters rule in his favor than you have no further to look than the incompetence of LNDD. Because such a ruling would mean that they found the breakdown of the chain of custody and procedures at LNDD so negligent as to adversely affect the outcome of their testing results.

If on the other hand the arbiters rule against Floyd Landis and you think they should have ruled in his favor than you can again blame a system that allows one drug testing lab to test both the 'A' and 'B' sample and is set up to convict athletes rather than to truly seek the truth in a fully transparent and accountable fashion. That people can trust.

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


I generally agree with your comments, yet in some ways that is the easy out.

The arbitrators are part of the flawed system. Catlin, whom I think is now on the outskirts of the system has the courage to state that Landis' test WOULD NOT be considered positive in his lab, yet recognizes/states it is under WADA rules.

Were an arbitrator/s to say in their ruling, the system requires we rule X, were we NOT under these constraints we would rule Y. The earth would move.


Anonymous said...


I agree with you for the most part. However, I think one should wait until the ruling and the reason for the ruling before we can fully evaluate the "heart" and character of the arbiters.

Ken ( said...

The Dragon, and GatorDawg,

I agree with both of you. I just think at this point in time we should not cast negative judgment on the arbiters because we really didn't see anything in the hearings to deserved it. As you say GatorDawg, once we can read the ruling and reasoning for the ruling we can evaluate the arbiters.

I'm simply growing tired of the baseless personal attacks on individuals associated with these hearings. They serve no constructive purpose.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Judge Bill Hue - I am the original poster 'Anon' who wrote, and whose text you quoted to begin this thread. First of all, I'll post with my full name, and a web address, since it's only fair. Second of all, I very much appreciate the fact that you addressed my comments directly. What I failed to mention in my post(s) is that I have been very thankful for this blog, the analysis, and the information. Like many other people, I've had a difficult time understanding the true facts of what happened at the Tour de France, and I've hoped to gain some more knowledge from this site.

I would also like to retract my comment that I wouldn't like to be in your court or have you as a judge. I think that was a bit too reactionary of a statement to make, and too personal for someone I don't know.

It's nice to see that so many people have defended you, and it has truly made me rethink my post. Although I do think that we disagree on some points, it doesn't detract from my opinion that all voices should be heard in a public forum. I also agree that trolls need to be kept out of conversation because they simply distract. I hope the members do not see me as a troll - I think some of my questions were legitimate and my concerns very real.

In the long run, you've treated me, and my comments, very fairly, and I thank you for that. And I'd also like the people who've added opinions on this issue for helping to broaden the discussion about opinions, bias and ethics.

I do hope I won't be shouted out the door, as I agree with you all that this debate is at the crux of many broader issues about sport, international relations, fairness and integrity.

Thanks again - you're a good guy.

Laura Challoner, DVM said...

Hey John.
Thanks so much.
We never considered you a troll.
Many of the posts we had to delete were really awful and some related to me. The graphic nature of some juxtiposing me by name with the suicide of Landis' father in law were very upsetting to my wife. While you don't know me, I'll ask you to have faith that we aren't deleting opposing viewpoints, we are deleating tasteless and offensive posts to me or others that serve no legitimate purpose that we can see.
Bill Hue

Anonymous said...

We do consider doper apologist trolls.

Emotional trolls of the worst order.

The Landis cheating cannot be saved by these silly trolls.

Anonymous said...

btw: Why did Floyd' father-in-law shoot himself (suicide) in a carport just days after learning of the testosterone flunked test?????

That is as relevant as Will Geoghegan's witness tampering!

Ignoring facts won't save Barbaro's memory either.

People just can't handle truth.

Laura Challoner, DVM said...

Please leave the two above up as they illustrate what we are talking about when we decide to deleat posts. After this though, this particular line of posts will be deleted and we don't appologize for that.

DBrower said...

There have been a bunch of ugly ones today. 6:03 above is only remaining because Bill has asked for a reprieve.

That's about it for me though; something that isn't offering anything in argument is going to have a short lifespan.


Anonymous said...

Bill -
Thanks for the follow-up to my follow-up. It's interesing to see that this board and site are just as thought provoking and relevant as it was during the height of the arbitration. It will be very good to sit back and re-read many of the posts and think about the long term situation for Landis, cycling, laboratory standards worldwide, and many other issues.

I'm sorry (really sorry) to hear that you're getting threats from the board. They are (I'm certain) baseless. People are more bored than they'd like to admit, and mix boredom with a raging opinion and it's a recipe for disaster.

I'm glad to have a dialogue with you about the posting process, fairness, and judgement in general. When I've stopped reading the posts on TBV, I'll know that I've really learned something here, even more than Landis' story, about people being able to communicate and speak with fairness to each other. Makes the web very human. :-)


Anonymous said...

Thanks again for your comments.
We had not particularly set out for TBV to be a place where so much debate and idea exchange would occur in a comment section but that is a positive phenomena that just happened. you are part of the dialogue and we appreciate it.