Hue-Monday Mailbox

If the panel thinks there are ISL violations, do they let USADA know that before the hearing is over? USADA to this point hasn't admitted any significant errors. Does USADA start operating at least partly on the premise that such a thingmight occur and start trying to show that such errors didn't cause the finding, or do they stumble along their current path of "everything is fine despite the fact that it isn't" tactic?

That is a question we talked about quite a bit. I originally thought that the complex "burden turn" system in the WADA Code would be used to terminate hearings at certain points. But I think it is a process the arbitrators will go through to stop or continue their fact finding in deliberation. That won't effect the evidence. USADA will not just assume they won. They will put on evidence in rebuttal just in case.

Bill - you seem to be changing your tune on the panel (i.e. no way it would be anything other than 2-1 against Landis). Are you implying that you now think they will give Floyd a fair shake?

I'm thinking 2-1 against Landis if they determine no International Standards violation. With the evidence today, if they believe International Standards violations occured, I further believe they will buy the Landis case 3-0. If they do that,they will want to be unanimous to jetison LNDD,while endorsing the rest of the WADA labs. It depends on whether the Panel expert, Botre, will he toe the WADA line? Whatever is done will be done in private. Oh, but to be a fly on the wall!!!

Bill, how do they judge violation of International Standards? Simply the opinion of the panel? The Landis team put on pretty compelling evidence that LNDD is incompetent today (which frankly didn't take much to show after listening to their employees). Is one violation enough? Five? A pattern of such violations?

They conclude or don't conclude the IS violation by majority vote. No athlete has ever succeeded in doing that against USADA. Travis Tygart may have made a shrewed political move assigning this case to outside counsel. Whatever violation(s) they conclude occured must be shown by USADA to the Panel's comfortable satisfaction NOT to have CAUSED the adverse analytical finding .

Does the panel have the authority to order that the samples be retested at an alternate lab? Provided there is enough sample left to test, this would seem to be a possible solution that might really get to the truth, provided that the samples have not been contaminated or deliberately spiked. I guess that these are the issues depend on the ruling on CoC issues.

By a 2-1 vote, they have determined they can't stop UCI, by USADA, the owner's of the urine (Floyd Landis doesn't own it) from testing it, as long as their expert (from the Rome WADA lab) is there and Landis reps have whatever right their attendance at "B" sample testing is to be there too. so the log answer is no. although the concept is intriguing. See the athlete can't get any portion of his urine back under the WADA code to test it himself.

I remember talk on the DPF board at one time (I think lost in the crash) that the A and B samples were so inconsistent that it implied tampering. Any chance the Landis lawyers will argue that? Have they been setting up that point at all?

I don't think that is something they are going to do. They didn't say anything in opening in that regard and that would feed the critics who insist this case is not about LNDD science proceedures but is actually based on a conspiracy theory. As long as I've been following the case, I have not seen the Landis team claim conspiracy.