FFF Statement on Decision
Received at 10:01 PT, sent to the FFF mailing list.
Dear Floyd Fairness Fund Supporter,
You will have no doubt heard by now of the arbitration panel’s split decision against Floyd. For those of us who hoped the panel would take the opportunity to judge the case on the facts and science, this is bitterly disappointing, particularly given the clear evidence of incompetence and unprofessional practice extending from the LNDD across the WADA/USADA anti-doping bureaucracy. While Floyd considers his options, we can at least reflect on the success we have had at highlighting the dramatic need for reform in this tortuously unfair system. I would encourage all of you to read the panel’s decision and contrast the clarity and logic of Mr. Campbell’s dissent in Floyd’s favor against the scientifically flawed and illogical conclusion of the two Canadian attorneys. I have no doubt that as objective scientific and analytical minds review the ruling, its flaws will become abundantly clear.
We want to thank you for your support to date and pass along Floyd’s thanks as well. As for the Floyd Fairness Fund, we are trying to pay off outstanding receivables incurred by spending decisions made by Floyd’s attorney during the hearings. So any contribution you can make now to help us to do this would be greatly appreciated. When Floyd decides his next steps I know many of us are committed to continue to support him as best we can.
Whatever the next steps in Floyd’s battle for justice, the fight for a fair and effective anti-doping system must continue. If any good comes out of the injustice done to Floyd and his family, it may be that athletes in the coming years are not subject to this corrupt and cynical process that is doing little to mitigate doping in sport while WADA/USADA wastes our taxpayers’ dollars to mock American principles of justice and individual rights. Fortunately, there are persons like yourselves who are committed to “justice for all,” including for professional cyclists who are denied this basic right in the current anti doping system.
Thanks again for your support, and I know you all join me in thanking Floyd for taking a stand for justice and fairness for cyclists and all athletes subject to the WADA/USADA bureaucracy.
Sincerely,
Brian J. Rafferty
Floyd Fairness Fund
205 Lexington Avenue
New York 10016 USA
www.floydfairnessfund.org
6 comments:
Brian,
Very well stated. As for paying off the expenses incurred to date, we will send along a donation to help with that. No matter what happens from now forward, we would not like to see Floyd saddled with debts from his attempts to clear his name.
Bill & Annette
I wrote previously in the Friday Early Roundup. Some of the thoughts I keyed in earlier today mirror Brian Rafferty's open letter.
I said I would double my previous contribution if Floyd moves forward with further legal action, but I hadn't considered his current bills. My statement to double still holds. In the meantime, an additional contribution to help defry current expenses is on the way.
Again, best wishes.
I made my donation yesterday. I'll continue to do so as my abilities allow.
I have been thinking about Floyd's situation a lot, his legal bills and now unemployment, and his mission for fairness that should go forward, even if he choses not to appeal.
I am wondering if someone could design a cycling jersey as a fundraiser, with either the FFF logo or Team Landis: fighting for fairness, on it. The funds could go toward the legal bills or the FFF or whatever Mr. Rafferty feels is best. By wearing the jersey to ride or attend events, we can show our support for Floyd and all athletes who are going to come up against this fight in future, and send a message to USADA et al that the issue isn't going to go away just because they've "won."
I'm not a designer but I'd be glad to help in any way I could. In the meantime, I'll contribute too, to the FFF as I can.
Debby
P.S. The jersey could be yellow...
I have yet to see any explanation for how the IRMS test could lead to a false positive? Did you all belive Tyler Hamilton as well?
Craig, if you never saw the explanation, you weren't looking.
The explanation is that the CIR measured the ratio of something other than 5a, 5b and/or pdiol because LNDD does not identify the peaks in the IRMS correctly.
They make this error consistently, because their experimental setup and protocol are fundamentally flawed.
The Panel's reasoning on the key point is aburd, in that they put a quantitative requirement on its head and accepted a "we look at the peaks" identification methodology which is indefensible.
As to Tyler, I still can't say, because the same dishonorable litigation tactics were used there, precluding the production and evaluation of relevant evidence. I'm inclined to think he did it, but not with the confidence I'd like to have. That comes from the way the ADAs handled the case, not from what Hamilton presented.
TBV
Post a Comment