Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Hue - Wednesday Afternoon Mailbox

New mailbox for any questions, here.
Bill

I'm wondering if Bill Hue could comment on any reforms that may begin to come from cases like these. Will new law need to be legislated? If so at a national or International level? or specifically through which organizations. Obviously sporting bodies are allowed to arbitrarily define what merits what they describe as fair play. Where is the line drawn? Is it time for outside public intervention into these closed systems. So both the extremes of Barry Bonds (if he's guilty) and Floyd Landis (if he's not guilty) do not happen? How would this intervention be done?
[more]


USADA might be reformed by political legislation or funding pressures. The WADA Code needs to be changed but that would have to be done within WADA and its international "congress". i personally believe this case is in large part related to an effort to bring intervention into the closed systems, through public outcry (better chance before the Will fiasco)or opening the eye's of athletes and fringe dwellers within the Olympic movement if not the "Powers that be" to do something.

Any sense as to how well Brenna has rehabilitated the faltering LNDD science?


He does a fine job of expressing USADA's point of view. At his point, even short debates between Brenna and Davis isn't going to definitively resolve anything. Here's the "wildcard", Botre. What will HE tell the Panel because if he says Landis' arguments are all wet, Landis won't win. If he says USADA's arguments are all wet, USADA will not win. Davis and Brenna aren't tripping his trigger one way or another today.

um, sorry, but i couldn't get in and that was *very* hard to follow (or maybe my brain has just said "enough")...in a nutshell -- what happened?


TBV is the science guy and he will summarize the testimony, later today.
Brenna testified today that mix-cal acetate was fine, has never been challenged and if it is fine, there is no problem with the machine. So, even though there "might" have been be problems theoretically, there were no problems and once there are no problems, you don't worry about things that might have gone wrong...... because nothing was wrong.

I thought it was interesting that all the individual reports that Brenna showed as proof that the retention times matched, didn't have a batch identifying number on them. There is no way to prove that they even match up to the summary sheets they are being compared to. wasn't this a major point of contention in Davis direct testimony?


Davis will cover that, or Suh will do it on cross.

I think this trial is a perfect example of how biased America is against Mennonites- maybe they have unnaturally high hormones. Look at the medical cases that exist regarding Mennonites:
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/blue-lights-save-lives-in-stricken/20070520135709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001 why is no one mentioning this?


Because that is the biggest DANCING MONKEY ever?

As a legal professional, are you seeing clear ISL violation(s)?



I can see them, but I don't count. Botre's opinion is the one that counts.

Botre has no obligation to be fair, though, has he? He could have mailed in his consultation if he had wanted to. Speculation - Can there be any fallout for WADA et al., other than a CAS arbitration that is still stacked with their own people? Is there any use in talking to the DoJ if after a week or two of digesting the findings and comparing it to the testimony?


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.

Beeble asks the $24,000 question for which I can't summarize here, other than to say that Suh will spend at least an hour of his closing or more on the issue;

What DOES constitute an ISL violation?



17 comments:

roadkill said...

Any sense as to how well Brenna has rehabilitated the faltering LNDD science?

cam said...

um, sorry, but i couldn't get in and that was *very* hard to follow (or maybe my brain has just said "enough")...

in a nutshell -- what happened?

Jim said...

I thought it was interesting that all the individual reports that Brenna showed as proof that the retention times matched, didn't have a batch identifying number on them. There is no way to prove that they even match up to the summary sheets they are being compared to. wasn't this a major point of contention in Davis direct testimony?

Anonymous said...

Hi,
Mr. Bill, H?
I think this trial is a perfect example of how biased America is against Mennonites- maybe they have unnaturally high hormones. Look at the medical cases that exist regarding Mennonites:
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/blue-lights-save-lives-in-stricken/20070520135709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Here is an example of how cultures can maintain a genetic identity that can trip up a test.
Why hasn't anyone brought this up?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone understand that Floyd Landis is being discriminated against? Seriously- he really might have body chemistry that is "regionally different" (as in he is a Mennonite).
This is a fact- you can research it on the internet.

Anonymous said...

Judge Hue,
I work in an R&D lab for a company that makes over the counter drugs regulated by the FDA. After listening to Landis' expert witnesses, I'm literally astounded by the incompetency at LNDD and have become convinced that that incompetency resulted in erroneous values. However, having said that, I also know that it will not be incompetency in and of itself that will determine the outcome, but whether ISL violations occurred. As a legal professional, are you seeing clear ISL violation(s)?

Regards,
Bob/Phoenix

Anonymous said...

"I can see them, but I don't count. Botre's opinion is the one that counts."

Q: Botre has no obligation to be fair, though, has he? He could have mailed in his consultation if he had wanted to. Speculation - Can there be any fallout for WADA et al., other than a CAS arbitration that is still stacked with their own people? Is there any use in talking to the DoJ if after a week or two of digesting the findings and comparing it to the testimony?

Even if this goes in the way of being an obvious sham, it's not like the athletes have any other choice but to operate under this system. If the inconsistencies still exist in the future, it's nothing but russial roulette for the athletes, it seems.

Anonymous said...

Medicated Mennonites are the meanest of all.

Landis is proof positive.

MMan said...

Even if this goes in the way of being an obvious sham, it's not like the athletes have any other choice but to operate under this system.

Didn't they used to say that about the "reserve clause" in baseball?


If the inconsistencies still exist in the future, it's nothing but russial roulette for the athletes, it seems.


I think the Landis hearing may wake up a lot of athletes who figured "I'm doing nothing wrong, so I've got nothing to worry about."

beeble said...

Followup to Bob in Phx...

What DOES constitute an ISL violation?

Anonymous said...

"Didn't they used to say that about the "reserve clause" in baseball?"

Yeah, until one athlete sacrificed his career to pave the way for change....

Wait, a parellel?

"I think the Landis hearing may wake up a lot of athletes who figured 'I'm doing nothing wrong, so I've got nothing to worry about.'"

I hope you're right. Unfortunately for the athletes, most under this system are amateurs and don't have the resources needed to insist on a fair system. You can't remove all of the human error from it, but from the looks of the LNDD techs' testimony there is nothing but human error.

Nancy Toby said...

How do we go about nominating Bill Hue to serve on the Committee to Overhaul the USADA?

Thanks once again for your great work.

bill hue said...

Thanks Nancy!

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:39,

Of course Landis did something wrong! He was an american winning the tdf in the year when american dominance (Lance) was supposed to be over. Any American leading the tdf from here on out should have one of his people escort his samples 24/7 from collection to analysis, since I am sure LNDD will be "working" even harder to get the next one.

Ken said...

I HAVE to keep some faith in the honor of the arbitrators

I have to agree with this. They are professionals after all. I do not believe they would taint their credibility simply to toe the WADA line. Besides, they could find in Landis's favor and protect USADA/WADA by sacrificing LNDD.

I think deep down the key players in the hearing are good people wouldn't want to convict an innocent person. I think this includes the USADA lawyers, its just that they have a job to do and they believe in Floyd's guilt.

It is simply a matter that we have to hope that they are as troubled by LNDD as many of us are.

Maybe even WADA's draconian system wouldn't be so bad if all labs maintained UCLA's gold standard. Its just that the system has no checks and balances to catch incompetent labs like LNDD.

Anonymous said...

I totally disagree about USADA's lawyers not wanting to convict an innocent person. They are hired guns who are being paid to win...period. Their sole job is to present their client's case in a way that gives the clinet the best chance of winning. They bear no responsibility for whether their client is right or wrong...they are hired to win. Don't confuse their role with that of a prosecutor in a court of law. The prosecutor has the responsibility to make exculpatory evidence available and to not attempt to prosecute when there is clear evidence that contradicts their case. In this trial, the lawyers work for their client, not the state, and they were hired to win the case.

The same rules apply to defense attorneys...they have the responsibility to provide the best defense for their client, regardless of whether they know for a fact that he is guilty. They are hired to win as well. The panel members I have some faith that they may act impartially and try to keep an open mind...but to me, having Botre as their advisor is grounds for an appeal no matter what happens. There is ample evidence that WADA won't allow dissent among their labs, so there is no reason to assume that Botre would act or advise them independently of WADA's position.

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