Thursday, July 05, 2007

Thursday Roundup

News

CyclingNews thinks the verdict will be known tomorrow:

According to Belgian website sportwereld.be, American Floyd Landis will learn about his fate Friday (local US time) by the American Anti-Doping agency (USADA). The year-long case will know a verdict on the eve of the next Tour de France.

No confirmation yet. We are skeptical.

The Vail Daily gives us a prime example of this year's previews of the upcoming Tour de France, with the emphasis being on the lack of a defending champion, and the drug scandals that have continually rocked cycling since last year's Tour concluded.

Digital50 promotes the two upcoming "Positively False" book tour stops in the Chicago area at Borders stores to be held on July 9 and 10.


The Chicago Sun Times posts a short blurb on next week's scheduled appearance by Floyd Landis in Chicago to promote "Positively False". While there Floyd, who had hip resurfacing surgery last September, will ride with several prominent surgeons:

WORLD-CLASS CYCLIST Floyd Landis, who for years has suffered from the pain of osteoarthritis, will be in Chicago on July 10 to promote his new book, Positively False, at Borders on North Michigan and will ride with Dr. Mitchell Sheinkop and other orthopedic surgeons from the Neurologic and Orthopedic Institute of Chicago. Thanks to a revolutionary hip resurfacing surgery, Landis is feeling and riding better than ever.


The Times Online's Charles Brenner gives us a video parody to amuse us as it's aimed at the doping scandals that have plagued the Tour de France. Titled,"EPO I Love You" it need translation, but one can laugh at it anyway. He also says, in a confused way,
Floyd Landis, last year's winner, is fighting an implausible campaign to retrieve the title that he lost after a positive drug test.

Dallas Morning Views thinks there was no outrage when Landis was caught.

Blogs
TripleCrankset contemplates the Landis case in the context of both recent books, and thinks what you conclude says as much about you as what the truth may be.

beRecruited Sportswrap expresses incredulity that Lance Armstrong believes Floyd Landis didn't cheat at the TdF last year. He snarks that only Floyd's parents have supported him, he is very wrong indeed.


BlogSportcolumn.com tells us that nobody cares what Lance Armstrong thinks about the Landis case anyway.

Dejuiced translates Lance's statements as:
“I’m Lance-effing-Armstrong. No one can touch me. I’ve been accused of doping since day one. I’m teflon, mofo, nothing sticks. So you know what, ya French bastards. I’m going to do the closest thing to outright admitting I was doping. I probably even was, but what are you going to do about it, frogs? You tried, and failed like always, you cheese-eating surrender monkeys. So, as always, I will remain a sports hero, you guys will look like the whiny bitches you all. And remember, even at 50% capacity, I got balls like you wouldn’t imagine.”

Ragin Asian thinks Lance and Floyd are pot and kettle.

Olson's Observations can't believe it's been almost a year since Floyd Landis won the TdF and all the trouble started. He is hoping that Floyd is innocent, but really just wants to talk about Le Tour itself.

Trentito picks up the "tomorrow" rumor; so does Velogirl, and The RoadBike, and Cycling Diary.

Ride2theRescue says, "Jury still out."

Peloton Jim is singing, "Tomorrow, tomorrow" in his Ruling Watch.

Rant deconstructs the rumor, with help from Bill Hue's comments here. Henson is denying knowledge of anything immanent.

Yardbarker notes that Lance Armstrong believes Floyd Landis won last year's Tour de France clean, but he feels that it's hard to believe anyone won the TdF clean with what is happening in cycling these days. Not to mention the fact that the Landis case has dragged on long enough already

Cycling Fans Anonymous thinks that if you listen to the Walsh interview on Competitor Radio you may change your mind about the David Walsh Armstrong book "From Lance to Landis". If it's anything like the NPR version it likely won't change the mind of anyone who has already made theirs up.

Delay of Game read the Armstrong comments on Floyd Landis' struggle to regain his reputation and thinks that Lance makes an inadvertent admission on the state of cycling and doping.

SportNet2 also takes note of Lance Armstrong's opinions on Floyd Landis' chances of winning his arbitration hearing.

Flick Lives disputes Landis' "no culture of doping" comment in the book.

Doberman on the Diamond
notices bloggers supporting Landis.

Sons of Sam Malone is that blog, except he's not a supporter.

Still Walking Backwards was confused by Versus' inclusion of Floyd Landis' name on last year's list of Tour de France competitors.

Britannica Blog runs through the current situation in the Landis case and pro cycling with the usual bombastic retelling of the story, complete with the inaccurate statement that Floyd Landis has been disqualified for his "testosterone fueled recovery" in last year's Tour de France.

Racejunkie lets folks know how he feels:
Case Hosed: well, Floyd Landis' predetermined ego-driven guilty, I mean thoughtful, objective, and evidence-based, verdict is finally due tomorrow, conveniently timed to ensure that, even on the freakishly unlikely chance that Landis is exonerated due to the astonishing bungling of the reckless moronothon lab chimps, he still won't have time to find a team, train, or line up for the Tour de France--this year, or, by the time any appeals are completed, likely ever. Even if these idiots do manage to find the truth despite themselves, given their monstrous mishandling of the tests and samples in this case, can anyone feel confident we'll ever truly know what happened here? Meantime, ASO/Tour de France head Christian "Dick" Prudhomme, who's spent much of the last year openly vilifying Landis before the trial even hit the pavement, suddenly claims a keen concern for due process, opining it's just a darn shame that the fair trial he so desperately wanted has taken so long, so that justice, either way, can finally be done. Am I on total crack, you disingenuous executioner jerk? And given that Operacion Puerto broke well before this scandal, why not the same push for UCI to move on that--afraid of losing most of the peloton before our big starting day in London, are we?

Steve-Z thinks everything is messed up too.

Quickrelease.TV finds Phil Ligget unimpressed with the writing of Landis out of Tour history.

10 comments:

bill hue said...

The transcripts were prepared in final form on June 11 and the parties received two weeks from that date, June 25, to prepare and submit proposed findings of Facts/Conclusions of Law/Order.

The Panel would use those important documents to prepare their Order. Under R-34 (B), the parties may respond to each other's submissions:

"If the parties agree, if any party requests and the arbitrator agrees, or if the arbitrator directs that documents or other evidence be submitted to the arbitrator after the hearing, the documents or other evidence shall be filed with the AAA for transmission to the arbitrator. All parties shall be afforded an opportunity to examine and respond to such documents or other evidence"

These Rules are also important:

R-37. Closing of Hearing

The arbitrator shall specifically inquire of all parties whether they have any further proofs to offer or witnesses to be heard. Upon receiving negative replies or if satisfied that the record is complete, the arbitrator shall declare the hearing closed. If briefs are to be filed, the hearing shall be declared closed as of the final date set by the arbitrator for the receipt of briefs. If documents are to be filed as provided in Section R-34 and the date set for their receipt is later than that set for the receipt of briefs, the later date shall be the closing date of the hearing. The time limit within which the arbitrator is required to make the award shall commence, in the absence of other agreements by the parties, upon the closing of the hearing.


R-38. Reopening of Hearing

The hearing may be reopened on the arbitrator's initiative, or upon application of a party, at any time before the award is made. If reopening the hearing would prevent the making of the award within the specific time agreed on by the parties in the contract(s) out of which the controversy has arisen, the matter may not be reopened unless the parties agree on an extension of time. When no specific date is fixed in the contract, the arbitrator may reopen the hearing and shall have 10 days from the closing of the reopened hearing within which to make an award. The 30 day period for re-opening a hearing [under rule 38 of the Commercial Arbitration Rules] shall be reduced to 10 days.


Assuming the Panel closed the hearing as of June 25th (we don't know that), under R-38, they have only 10 days, tomorrow, to make an award.

I think the dutch article writer did the math correctly but the writer made two assumptions:

1)The arbitrators did not allow replys under R-34 (b);
2) The arbitrators closed the hearing on june 25th.

The reason the arbitrators did not close the hearing in May, was to allow transcripts to be prepared and the parties to offer further submissions. The formal "closing" of proceedings starts the 10 day clock ticking.

However, the Rules do not compel when the Panel chooses to close the hearing, so any date they set would seem to allow them more time to make a decision.

Thus, while the article appears to be correct as to its math, there is still an issue as th whether the Panel has closed the hearing and whether it did so on June 25th.
Bill

strbuk said...

Good points Bill, BTW did you get my Lancaster Reports? I am not sure I sent them to the right email addy. Let me know...

str

bill hue said...

str:
I got the updates from Lancaster. I'm glad to hear you had a happy anniversary as well. Congratulations!
Bill

N.B.O.L. said...

Okay, I am now confused. Don't the arbitors have 30 days from the close of the hearing to give their award, unless the hearing is reopened. I thought the 10 day rule only kicked in if the hearing was reopened.

bill hue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bill hue said...

I posted awhile ago but I dumped the response because i found the answer.
Here it is:



The Dutch article gave no reason, either a source or a citation to the Arbitration Rules to explain their assertion that the decision would come down tomorrow. I had to try to figure out how they came up with the information based on the interpretation of the Rules as best I can to explain their view.



R-43. Time of Award

The award shall be made promptly by the arbitrator and, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified by law, no later than 10 days from the date of closing the hearing, or, if oral hearings have been waived, from the date of the AAA's transmittal of the final statements and proofs to the arbitrator. The 30 day period given to the arbitrator under rule 43 of the Commercial Arbitration Rules for rendering an award shall be reduced to 10 days.

Bill

Mike Solberg said...

TbV, not a big deal, but I think you misread Still Walking Backward's blog post. She was looking at a rider's list, thinking it was this year's list, and saw Floyd's name. She thought "How can that be?" Then she realized it was last year's list.

syi

wschart said...

Perhaps the Dutch are speculating a decision tomorrow because this would allow the TdF to declare an official winner in time for the start this coming Sunday. I know that either way the decision goes, an appeal is at least possible. Still, an official decision would give ASO some cover to declare "OK, ______ is the winner." If an appeal reverses the arbs result, things can always be changed.

("Eightzero") said...

That the arbs would make changes to their proceeding, including changing their timetable to appease the ASO would be yet more evidence the fix is in.

Christian Prudhomme's comment is telling as well: "It already wasn't very logical that a positive sample from last July was only juristically dealt with in May this year in the United States." After all, the ASO clearly knew FL was guilty when LNDD reported the A sample results. What's the delay for, anyway?

Of course, if ASO had selected a lab that did actual science, maybe this wouldn't be an issue for them.

Michael said...

Anyone find it strange that all 189 riders were cleared by the UCI to start the Tour on Sat. I'm assuming that all the riders showed up in London around Wed. or Thursday to begin medical exams and meetings with the media. How come we found out 4/5 days after the Tour about Landis' supposed positive test, yet somehow, the UCI can complete 189 tests in two days.

Makes me think...WTF???? Especially considering all the mistakes the LNDD technicians made during Landis' testing. I can only imagine how 'overworked' the techs must have been the last two days.