Decision Documents
We have put the documents up on the archive, and have not yet read them. They are not yet up on the USOC pressbox site, nor through a USADA press release.
First, the "Highlights of Award", basically a press release.
Second, the Majority award, now also at USADA.
Third, the Dissent award, now also at USADA.
Lastly (for now), the USADA press release.
"I want to thank all of the dedicated USADA Board members and employees, the many experts who assisted in this case and our outside counsel, Rich Young, Matt Barnett, Dan Dunn and Jennifer Sloan of Holme Roberts & Owen LLP for their tireless commitment in pursuing the truth. Everyone on USADA’s team operates on one fundamental principle: do what is right,” continued Tygart. “Here, despite the intense pressure applied by Mr. Landis and his high-priced legal and public relations team, we knew that doing what was right required staying the course and fulfilling our duty to clean athletes. USADA brought the case against Mr. Landis because, as the independent panel confirmed today, the scientific evidence established that he had committed a doping violation.
(emphasis added)
9 comments:
TBV
http://www.usantidoping.org/what/management/arbitration.aspx
I found it at the URL
GMR
OK you've got it....
Here's a catchy paragraph:
The above data also show that the manual subtraction of the background performed by the Paris laboratory, apart from being covered by their internal
Standard Operating Procedures, appears to be a scientifically sound process, aimed to improve the quality of the signal and, therefore, the reliability of the obtained results, and not to alter the results of the analysis.
page 45-46
I can't imagine what is sound about the process I heard at the hearings.
Okay, fine, so majority wins out here but shouldn't there be a lesser sentence or something to consider since it wasn't a 3-0. Campbell obviously has a strong case in favor of Landis and it's completely ignored and weighs absolutely no bearing on the outcome (and certainly not in the press for that matter)? Sad day for justice.
Hmmmm.
Campbell basically calls WADA, USADA and LNDD a bunch of liars if I understand this correctly.
Maybe the other arbitrators too.
Will anyone notice or care?
mman
You do not understand the dissent correctly. The issue is not dishonesty, as it was in the cited Bible passage, but trustworthiness as the term is(or should be)evaluated in what are purported to be due process proceedings.
The Bible passage is not meant, by citation, to be literal, but like many Bible passages, illustrative of moral precepts.
The Bible passage is not meant, by citation, to be literal, but like many Bible passages, illustrative of moral precepts
Campbell could have used any one of many Biblical passages, or none at all.
The word "dishonest" is in the first sentence twice.
I really think he means it.
mmman,
Luke 16:10 :
"He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much.
This doesn't have anything to do with dishonesty and everything to do with being just in word and deed and just when you are a steward over such things on earth to prove wothiness to enter heaven. It is illustrative of the need to follow one's own rules. It is a comment on hypocracy rather than a condemnation for dishonesty.
"He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much.
I know this was originally in Greek, but Campbell wrote it in English, and that's not the translation he used. Check the PDF - it says "dishonest".
What happened with paragraph 61 of the dissent?
(seems to be missing half of the paragraph?)
Post a Comment