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?