Sunday, May 20, 2007

Sunday Roundup

It's been a crazy week, and we're catching up on things. Don't be surprised if some links are duplicates or old.

News

Philip Hersh of the Chicago Tribune thinks Landis has assassinated his own character, because of the call.

ESPN's Bonnie DeSimone writes of the torturous events this week that led to Floyd Landis testifying in his own defense yesterday afternoon. His words at one time might have held more sway, but since the LeMond testimony earlier in the proceedings and the subsequent revelation of a threatening phone call from former Landis manager Will Geoghegan they took on less significance, as has the science of the case:

Every bit of non-scientific background noise in the Landis hearings, including witnesses LeMond and confessed doper Joe Papp, distracts from the real issue, which is whether or not the Chatenay-Malabry laboratory's tests were properly performed and the results valid.

Landis summed up his testimony, which will continue tomorrow during cross examination, with a heartfelt prepared speech, but whether it can be heard above the din created by issues having nothing to do with the central themes this case was based on is in serious doubt:

"People are defined by their principles and how they make their decisions," Landis said deliberately, slowing his usual rapid-burst speech pattern. "To me, bicycle racing was rewarding for the pure fact that I was proud of myself when I put the work into it and I could see the results and get something out of it.

"It wouldn't serve any purpose to cheat and win the Tour, because I wouldn't be proud of it. That's just not what the goal was, from the beginning.


The LA Times Mitchael Hiltzik covering yesterday's testimony by Floyd Landis, notes that the science has been lost amid the din of the controversy created by former manager Will Geoghegan's now infamous phone call to USADA witness Greg Le Mond. But, the science is still at the heart of what is to be decided and Dr. Don Catlin's testimony seemed to at once confirm and deny the crux of the Landis case:

Just before Landis' appearance, the arbitrators heard from perhaps the most distinguished scientific witness on USADA's list: Dr. Don H. Catlin, who recently retired as director of the UCLA Olympic Lab, perhaps the leading anti-doping lab accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA.

Asked by USADA attorney Richard Young what he had concluded after reading the laboratory record compiled by WADA's Paris lab, which issued the positive analysis of Landis' urine sample from Stage 17, Catlin replied: "No question about it, my opinion is that doping was going on. It's just inescapable."

But he began hedging almost immediately. He acknowledged that he would have found the lab sample positive "according to WADA criteria," but that UCLA's more rigorous standards for declaring a sample positive were "not met."


The San Jose Mercury News posts an Eddie Pells piece on yesterday's long awaited testimony by Floyd Landis at the USADA hearings at Pepperdine University. Pells described Landis as being calm and conversational in his recounting of the events that brought him to court. He vigorously denied ever using PEDs many times, and also admitted that his initial reaction to the positive test leaked by L'Equipe last summer was ill advised. As his parents and wife watched he acknowledged that his reputation can never be recovered, but that a victory won through cheating would be hollow. In response to the phone call made by former manager Will Geoghegan to Greg LeMond Landis said:


"I knew there was a problem," Landis said of his reaction upon realizing Geoghegan had made the call. "I was traumatized having him tell me that story in the first place. There are very few things I can imagine would happen to a person that are worse than that. To make light of that, I can't even put words to it."


As to the claims that LeMond testified to that Landis admitted to him that he had indeed used PEDs in last summer's Tour de France Landis said:


"I told him that I didn't do it," Landis said, refuting LeMond's assertion of the opposite. "I told him it wouldn't make any sense for me to admit to something I didn't do. But if I did admit it and I didn't do it, what would the positive outcome of it be?"

Landis will continue his testimony tomorrow after an off day today.


The VeloNews Jason Sumner tells of yesterday's dramatic testimony by Floyd Landis at his USADA hearings. Landis denied ever having used PEDs, but that denial may be lost in the background noise of the events surrounding the Greg LeMond testimony on Thursday. Dr Don Catlin also testified yesterday and his testimony, though damaging in some respects, also left some doubt as to the validity of the Landis test results from last summer.

The CyclingNews has Landis under oath, flatly denying the claims made by Greg LeMond in testimony last week that he confessed to cheating to win last year's Tour de France.

The Times Standard thinks that Floyd Landis doth protest too much.

The News-Tribune thinks that due to the Landis affair, cycling has become a two wheeled circus.

Newsweek's Mark Starr looks at the case, early in the week:
A win for Landis in arbitration would be an even bigger surprise than his triumph in France last summer.

Also earlier in the week, the same story about the Mongongu testimony got three completely different headlines, saying something about what readers bring. Delaware Online says, "Lab technician kept Landis' observers away from tests"; while Canada.com says "Landis Lawyers attack Lab technician";

The Southern.Com says,

Floyd, you just gotta let it go, my friend.

He’s tested positive for increased testosterone, what, four times now since the Tour de France began months ago? Give it up, Floyd. You’re guilty. Guilty as sin. You can try to poke holes at the lab, or the papers, or whatever else your legal team feels may have tried to twist the results. Because labs just hate Floyd Landis.

Parents, don’t let your kids grow up to be Floyd Landis. Teach them the power of honesty, that people will respect you a lot more if you come clean when you make a mistake.

I think he thinks it'd be nice if some folks at LNDD and USADA did that too.


Blogs
Steroid Nation gives us a nice plug, thanks! He also sums up yesterday's session of the Landis hearings with the same question being asked by many people:

That leaves one big question: how did Geoghagen obtain LeMond's cell phone number? Landis' version of the story is that the incident occurred at dinner; he didn't address the issue of how quickly his friend dialed up the hated LeMond. Are these cyclists so tight they all have each other's numbers on speed dial?

Nonetheless, Landis would appear to be principled against doping.

Guy William Welch visited the hearing, and noticed the Fox News Babe asleep. Must have been listening to Schantzer.

Fanhouse doesn't like jokes about Jack helping with the tactical plan:

I'm a little surprised that Landis still feels free to joke about taking a substance to assist his performance in the Tour, but maybe that's just me. Although the reviews of Landis's testimony have generally been favorable, athletes never win these appeals. More interesting details will emerge, but we already know the final result: Landis will be stripped of his Tour title.

Charitable Endeavors doesn't understand why no one from Phonak is on his witness list, and draws uncharitable conclusions.

Johnny Cat defends his friend, Floyd.

Dan Shanoff says (only):

Floyd Landis: OK, well HE insists he didn't cheat. Do you believe him?

Cincy Velo summarizes:

So 6 days down in the Landis circus, and what do we know???

USADA will do anything to win—-See Lemond, Papp, etc.
You have to question Floyd’s decision making skills—See Drunk Dialing, a former Biz Mgr
I wouldn’t trust the LNDD to do a pregnancy test on a dead rabbit

And lastly, I should have been riding instead of reading the trial transcripts.


(For the record, they're not transcripts, they're summaries)

Unqualified Offerings opines:
I’ve got my suspicions about LeMond’s motivations for his antidoping crusade that seems to focus on his American successors, but clearly this Geogheghan fellow was criminally over the line. There’s no evidence I’m aware of that Landis put Geogheghan up to it, but G. is a creepy fellow to have in your entourage.

Aaron opens his condemnation with:
After the events of the past two weeks, of which I will not go into great detail due to the confusion that could result,

The blog of eternal stench concludes:
Could a script writer on peyote and GHB even come up with something as bananas as this?

I need another skein has mixed feelings about getting a hip resurfacing at age 40, and invokes Landis.

Randomness and Chaos
makes a list of 20 top cyclists accused or proven dopers.

Bihl thinks, "the Tour De France will be tarnished for the rest of its existence."

HappyRobot thinks Landis is a turd. Do robots know what a turd is?

The Jellomen don't know what to do with their parody anymore.
Tom Lehrer said that satire died the moment that Henry Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize. The saga of Dr. David Hill's fall from grace in the 2007 Jelloman was dealt a devastating blow amidst the Theatre of the Absurd that is the Landis vs. USADA hearing. How can our parody possibly up the ante on the real thing?

The Pain Train, not excusing Geoghegan, thinks LeMond is a Simple Minds fan.

Team Fubar transitions:
onto the three ring circus that is the Floyd Landis case that has finally gone before the USADA. What in the hell is going on in California? Does everything that comes out of that case have to be so fucking bizarre?
Let me tell you about chromatograms, sonny, there was a bizarre one back in ought-three...

The Princess of Patience
thinks things are turning up for Landis. And they call me Mr. Sunshine!

Blessed Endurance runs Geoghegan's apology under the headline, "Better Never than Late" Will probably thinks so too.

Independant Freewheeling chicks say, "Don't Drink and Dial"

Velo Swiss says, "Welcome To Bizarro World." Hey, some of my favorite Superman stories were set there!

Deadspin thinks, "they don't make Mennonites the way they used to"

Spinopsys thinks what goes around comes around.

The Road Bike mourns the death of two heros.

Broken Spoke, wanting to be out front and avoid accusation of being a band-wagoner, thinks Landis didn't dope, and LeMond is an ass. It's a lonely road at the moment.

Go Faster Jim! refuses to write about Landis.










28 comments:

Anonymous said...

I've just finished watching Floyd's testimony. This man, this man who has been victimized by the evil, inept, conspiracy syndicate known as LNDD, WADA and the USADA, wants us to believe the following:

He testified that he was given a statement to read by his initial Spanish lawyers that he didn't understand ("...produced by my own organism") but read anyway and STILL doesn't understand what those words mean? Even laughing about it on the stand. Keep laughing Floyd...

He testified that he didn't know the name of the medication he takes for his thyroid condition only that it's "a little blue pill, if that helps". Even laughing about it on the stand. How can you NOT know the name of a medication that you take???? Keep laughing Floyd...

He testified he was "traumatized" hearing about Greg LeMond's sexual abuse and "...wouldn't wish that on anybody" but that sure didn't stop Floyd from posting about it on The Daily Peleton forum and alluding to it.

He further testified that he "...didn't know what to do" when he learned of the call Will had placed to LeMond so he waited until the next morning to speak to his lawyers about it because "they weren't back at the hotel yet" the night the phone call was made???

Any sensible, honest and ethical person would have fired the manager IMMEDIATELY and called the lawyers on their cell phones IMMEDIATELY and not wait until morning.

This poor victim wants us to believe him?? I don't. Character is character and he doesn't have any.

Thank you, Floyd Landis, for making your hearing public and telling your side of the story. You've shown who you really are.

Daniel said...

Isn't it curious that Lamond for "his love of the sport" decided to tell his story to Landis, to urge him to confess.Too bad he wouldn't submit to cross. If he loved the sport so much why didn't he call Hamilton, Bosso, members of the French team , Jan, Joe Pap or perhaps have a heart to Heart with Lance. It is pathetic that he resorts to this and equally pathetic that someone like Will could be so stupid no matter how much he drank.
Now we are going to see a cross that will be all about character issues of Will and Landis prior post concerning Lamond when Lamond would have been just an interesting but pathetic aside.

Daniel said...

Boy it sure is easy to criticize in hindsight how Floyd responded. He just had performed a super human effort to accomplish the penultimate goal in cycling and is accused of doping on one test (not before or after). You then are accosted by a frenzied world press and you are asked why the test was positive. You are about to have everything you worked for your whole life trashed a lab leaking information to the press before you know about it and we should expect a concise measured reason response from someone who is educated in cycling, not public relations. What should he of done, lawyered up and shut up (oh obviously guilty, if he doesn't respond and gets a lawyer to talk for him he is guilty) this is a guy who published his power numbers and has always been open where others hide. the fact is he had no idea what happened and how to respond and was caught in a catch 22. If you do not have an explanation, there is none, if you give your own idea as to why it might have happened you look like a jerk because it is science. If you had a doctor or someone who knew about doping adn he was giving you the dope the first thing you would do if you get caught is ask him what to say that would be a scientific explanation. I find that landis excuses actually fortify the position that he didn't dope and had no idea how these numbers came up. I hope his lawyers use that

Anonymous said...

At some point in everybody's life, a close friend will do something really stupid. I fully expect all of the Landis critics you to employ the "Floyd standard" on themselves and immediately and without hestiation fire or distance yourself from that close friend when they err.

Especially a friend who has been standing by you when you were going through tough times. Landis hired Will G as his Business mnager last August - when all his supposed friends had abandoned him. Will showed loyalty to Floyd and you expect Floyd not to show the same to Will?

Further, this is yet another catch-22 for Landis. If he acted like a seasonal political pro and immedetaly fired Will that night, you'd be screaming about what a cut-throat the guy is. He destroys his friends to protect himself.

cam said...

while i think what happened to LeMond was horrible, i find the fact that he came "out" with his secret during this trial quite fascinating. before Will's call, LeMond really didn't have much to add to the case other than his selective memory of the private phone conversation with Landis. for this measly anecdote which has no bearing on the crux of the case (the scientific data), he was willing to bare his deepest darkest secret? could the fact that he has a book coming out have anything to do with his willingness to testify? and to leave a dirty taste in the mouth of cyclings fans (even his, of which i was one)?

Will's call was ill-advised to say the least, and stupid stupid stupid is not nearly strong enough. however, i don't believe it was malicious. i don't think Floyd did either. Will has been described as a "loose canon" not a vindictive one. if Floyd had fired him on the spot, after years of friendship and loyalty during his darkest days, *that* would have looked bad and been very out of character. to think it would never come out, however, was delusional. unfortunately, it's a no win situation for everyone involved.

and to criticise them for not telling the lawyers that night -- what nonsense! what were the lawyers going to do, call up LeMond, apologise, kiss and make up? come on, it was the prosecutors wet dream come true.

everyone wants this all in a neatly wrapped present with a big yellow bow on it. unfortunately, the truth very rarely comes packaged so nicely.

Anonymous said...

Catlin replied: "No question about it, my opinion is that doping was going on. It's just inescapable."

Regardless of WADA's or UCLA's lab standards, I can't escape that quote as a summary of what Catlin told the hearing in terms of the science he reviewed on Floyd's samples.

Theresa said...

Rant, cam, and anon 8:05; thank you for showing the an even-handed look at the situation. The human drama is not lost on me. Greg LeMond has his own agenda, and he's just as loose a cannon as anyone.
I remember being in a difficult position in my life, and faced with decisions I wasn't sure how to react with. I chose a bad decision. It was a decision made at a desperate time, with a desperate frame of mind. And it was wrong. I know how that feels. I though I would die when found out; I paid my price and lived with the shame that I can still feel today. And that was not in front of the world! I made a bad choice that was wrong; but it didn't change who I was, I was a bad person or cheat; and I made me aware that sometimes the best people make mistakes.

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

Here's my take. Ladis doped and is lying. He thought he had a chance to cast enough doubt about the process to maybe win. But, even if he couldn't win, he could still continue with proclaiming his innocence, and continue on with his book, public appearances, etc. as the rightous but wronged pure athelete. And, after two years get back on a team etc. Like Tyler Hamilton. What's more, with the FFF, he could get other people to pay for everything. What was there to loose? Plus, like Lemond said Landis told him, to admit to doping would hurt a lot of people. And, so what if all his defense and other expenses add up, he'll just declare bankruptcy, like he already has said he might do. So, he continues on with his denials, and some people will continue to believe him, and finacially support him, or so he hopes. What I think will be interesting is what happens if he is found guilty, as far as the FFF. I wouldn't doubt someone would sue Landis and / or the FFF for fraud. And in that case, there won't be a jury of bicycle racing enthusists who idolize Landis, there will be a jury of regular people who probaly, and rightly, think there's a lot of doping in a lot of sports, and they're not going to be sympathetic to someone already found to have doped. Plus, there may be tax exemption issues with the Fund, and there might be some governmental prosecution. I doubt Landis would get prosecuted for perjury, but who knows. Anyway, its not unusual that someone caught doping denies it; ask anyone in the criminal justice system or drug rehab industry; they all deny it. I think if Landis really cared about anyone other than himself, he'd save everyone a lot of trouble and just confess and ask for forgiveness and move on. Also, as far as Will G, I think its true that you're somewhat known by the company you keep. What's that say about Landis that his closest friend and (ex) business manager is such a creep?

pem said...

In support of Daniel, Cam, Theresa and Anon 8:05 above, Landis’ delay in informing his lawyers and firing Geoghegan is not a negative testament to his character. Although the call was reprehensible, Geoghegan made that call to Lemond with the best interests of his friend in mind. How could Landis abandon his friend during his friend’s darkest moments, when that friend was always there for him? Landis protected his friend as long as possible, even from his lawyers, hoping that it would not come up, and knowing it may hurt him even more.

The effort USADA spends cross examining Landis about the Geoghegan call will also be a testament on their pursuit of the “truth”, as the call had nothing to do with the Stage 17 doping offence.

In addition, Lemond should never have been involved in this issue publicly. In his effort to try to rid the sport of doping, he has in this particular case, muddied the water even more.

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

I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere, but the Landis team's supplemental pre-trial brief is now posted on the USOC web site.

The first part is an account of the collection of the EDFs from LNDD. The latter part (haven't read it yet and it may be over my head) appears to detail the problems with the analyses of the data.

Much of the testimony in the next three days will probably be about stuff from this brief.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Until yesterday I was following the live video feed (worse than from a motorbike on the TdF) and following the realtime blog here to keep up with what was happening pretty well. Then when FL was up, the video went down (for me), and I was on the latest link here on TBV following the sporadic summary when the play by play was actually two headings back. Although Hue did an outstanding job, too many headings made it confusing.

Today I went to FL.com to see his testimony and it won't load probably for the same reason the live feed won't- too much traffic.

If it's not working for me with a DSL and a loaded Mac G5 tower, then a lot of people out there aren't getting it either. CVN doesn't have the capacity to handle the load and it is frustrating. I went to YouTube but suprisingly none of the hearing is there either.

Not saying this is a conspiracy or anything but it does limit access to what everyone was waiting many months to see: Floyd, first hand, in his own words. In the court of public opinion, FL's voice is getting shut down in many subtle and not so subtle ways.

If anyone can post FL's testimony on YouTube that would help since there are people all over the world that know that site and can get on since the infrastructure is supported by Google, where as CVN is woefully inadequate in even covering the hearing or streaming the archives.

thanks to TBV and anyone who can help.
(and sorry for double posting)

Drew said...

Sorry to completely change the toppic and go back to talking about the actual case and not insults and rediculous off hand comments....

But did it seem to anyone else that while Catlin was providing some information that may help team Landis, it looked like he was also doing quite a bit of "good citizen" work as well.

I realized that he's retired and under no pressure to do so, but after 25 years, you ahve to wonder how many friends he's made and how much instinct is still there to tow the company line a bit further.

Anonymous said...

if some near-stranger calls you up on the phone to bitch about what you said about him public, would you answer by telling him your deepest personal secret?

does this make you nutso looney tunes?

or does it make you a very smart, manipulative bastard? he give that informtion to someone who's acting like an impulsive hot-head -- maybe he was hoping for the predictable result. it just took longer than he thought it would

lemond had made peace with his secret (if in fact it is true) so why not use it to get lots of media attention while bringing down another pretender to his throne?

Vance said...

Rather than guess at motives, and what is truth, let us look at the evidence presented thus far.

Catlin and the labs agree that the LNDD, while not perfect, has evidence the rider in question used a prohibited substance.

The rider denies using the prohibited substance.

Again we are faced with the major issue: where is truth? Is there a truth in all this? Someone, come up with something.

The defense is clearly trying to say the lab was incompetent, which doesn't seem to be flying.

What are the explanations other than FL is lying and the lab is totally off.

1. 'The cream' defense? That Landis used something contaminated, ala Gary Sheffield. If Landis doesn't know the name of thyroid medication (either Cytomel T3 or Synthroid T4) could someone sneak a balm with T in on him?

2. Contamination of the lab sample?

3. Contaminated supplement?

If I were a scheming plotter I would be looking at everything FL used the days before the test. Who had access to him. If someone pulled a stupid phone prank, then why not a stupid attmept to boost his energy????

I would also note that Catlin has some issues with WADA...

Michael said...

If everyone would take out the LeMond and Papp fiasco's and concentrate on the science, this thing probably would be over.

i'm not sure why SUH didn't ask Catlin something to the extent of, "You rated the test results a C, would your lab, forgetting about WADA protocols, declared these results positive for Synthetic testosterone?" Based on his earlier testimony, would have said NO.

CASE OVER...

Jim T said...

"CASE OVER..."

No, unfortunately, case not over. Remember that WADA rules apply here. They have a one metabolite standard. It's pretty clear that the science on that is shaky, which is why UCLA doesn't use that standard. But remember, Floyd doesn't get to question whether WADA is using good science to develop their criteria, he only gets to argue that the lab didn't meet WADA's criteria.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see WADA quietly do away with the single metabolite standard in the future.

One thing I can't figure out, though. How can Catlin say that its inescapable that doping was going on and then say that his lab wouldn't have called the result a positive? So, what is it, a doping non-positive?

Anonymous said...

I was expecting more from the Landis team than what has happened so far. Is there ary more to their case? If not, there does not seem to be sufficient evidence that reasonable people will side with him.

Michael said...

Jim T,

I think I was trying to say what you said about a 'doping non-positive'. I think it was a cop out on Catlin's part to say his lab wouldn't have declared a positive yet there was proof of doping.

The only witness that wasn't 'wishy washy' was Floyd's witness.

Maybe they are saving it for Closing arguments??


Mike

Daniel said...

Landis has not put in his case (except one witness out of turn). You have heard USADA case that is all. Man I hope none of you ever serve on any of my juries. The case for the person who goes first is always strongest at this point after all they called their witnesses. What did you expect the witnesses they called to say?
The cross established that the practices fails to comply with their own protocol and that WADA is using a witness to establish there was doping and there lab work was excellent" However he acknowledges that if it was done in his lab it would of been negative, under WADA standards they would of still sent a side letter saying its positive but we don't believe it. And this excellent lab had chromagrams he would classify as barely passing. So consider were any inroads made on the USDA witnesses. Now Landis witnesses our undoubtably going to say they were wrong and there is no evidence to support a positive finding and they did not follow the procedures to establish that there finding should be accepted. Think of it as a breathalizer. If the Police do not complete all the procedures correctly it can't establish your drunk no matter what results the device gives.
Not that I think any of this matter this whole procedure is a sham an athlete has no chance of winning a contested case unless the USADA witnesses acknowledge no there were no positive results.
My point is do not in this forum make a judgment until you hear all the evidence. We can comment on the effectiveness of a witness testimony but who among us would want others to judge us after only hearing one side.

Anonymous said...

Any response here to this, from the DPF:

"This is very damaging to Floyd's case, as it not only shows that doping with T can result in a single metabolite with a delta below - 3, but that this metabolite can be 5a.

Indeed. Shackleton’s testimony about T pharmacokinetics makes it even more damaging. A single 5aA with delta-delta values in access of 6 is simply too devastating. Four WADA labs using different criteria basically confirmed that this is an irrefutable sign of doping. Given that CAS never challenged WADA criteria of 3, or their uncertainty of .8, any other arguments become either moot, secondary or superfluous. This includes any academic arguments as to whether T is a threshold substance or how lab methodologies may differ, or if a sample was contaminated, or whether coelution affected T/E. Even arguing alleged coelution in IRMS assays is simply too weak to an experienced eye. Floyd's arguments about manual subtraction of base lines or manual peak integration are easily refutable by the obvious quality of controls and the standing lab practices in anti-doping business. Yes, it will be up to the Panel’s expert to referee these issues. But it’s hard to imagine that a WADA lab director (panel’s expert) will take Goldberger’s hypothetical arguments more seriously than a sworn testimony of 4 of his/her colleagues. Software erasure argument does not seem serious given Floyd’s lawyer’s difficulty in proving lack of traceability for ACTUAL SAMPLE MEASUREMENTS.

The following corroborating technical (w/o Lemond and Papp) evidence varies in strength but includes the following:

1. Confirmed T/E over 11.
2. Pattern of 2006 TDF T/E variations in access of 30%
3. 4 positive IRMS B-samples
4. Panel expert witnessed re-runs using new software for the most part support original findings
5. Complete lack of Floyd’s own tests"

Anonymous said...

Ken,

What's your analysis?

Anonymous said...

Jim and Michael:

The WADA language re: metabolite(s) is written exactly like this. It is ambiguous. I believe Ayotte stated the intent was a single met standard, but:
1. She runs a WADA lab
2. She can't say anything contrary to what WADA wants.

The Cologne study is interesting, but, until peer reviewed, is merely a well documented opinion.

Re: Catlin, the attorneys say don't ever ask a question you don't know the answer to. Suh was afraid to open Pandora's box. This goes back to the lack of discovery under WADA rules.

While I don't have any idea whether or not Landis doped, I am absolutely convinced that WADA is as slimey as any of the doper's they're trying to catch. Until they institute a serious overhaul of their practices, they cannot claim any moral high ground.

Paul

Jim T said...

Paul,

You're absolutely correct that WADA cannot claim the moral high ground here. They write the rules and many times don't base the rules on the best science. Then they refuse to let the athlete question the rules.

My post above was meant to show that even though Catlin's testimony casts doubt on whether Floyd's sample should have been declared positive, WADA doesn't care. They'll hold to the one metabolite standard regardless of the science. They are not in this to find the truth - at least not if the truth doesn't match their world view.

I got a kick out of the acceptance of the non-peer reviewed Cologne paper. Accepted for a conference is a long way from peer reviewed.

Ken said...

Anonymous 8:05,

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I didn't see your question until just now. I've spent much of the past couple of days going through the initial testimony trying to look at the science aspects of this whole affair, which I hope to post on my blog tomorrow.

I don't know if Floyd is innocent or guilty and don't believe we can ever truly get this answer. What I see is a seriously screwed up system that abuses science and railroads cyclists. These cases aren't about a search for the truth, but a desire to get a conviction at all costs and to catch all cheats even if this means also ruining the lives of a few innocent athletes along the way. To WADA the ends justify the means and a few innocent casualties is an acceptable price to pay to catch the cheats.

To me this is very un-American where the ideals of justice reason that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than it is to wrongly convict one innocent person.