Thursday, October 11, 2007

Thursday Roundup

For more news on the Landis appeal see the "Flash" from yesterday, and Bill Hue's quick review of CAS above.


News
Foxsports.AU carries a Reuters confirmation from CAS that Landis has appealed; also AFP via Yahoo.

Winnipeg Sun has no news, but the best headline:
Top sport court for Landis

The NY Times' Juliet Macur writes this morning that the Landis appeal was filed on Monday of this week and that the choice to appeal was a difficult one for Landis to make. Mairice Suh was quoted as saying that the Landis defense in the May hearings was not just based own what some term a "technicality", it was based on the fact that the LNDD got the wrong result. Travis Tygart of USADA feels the decision will be the same from the CAS as it was from USADA if the decision is based on the evidence.

The IHT says the CAS will rule on the Landis appeal by early next year:

CAS said it generally delivers its decisions — which are final and binding — within four months of the filing of an appeal. That means the ruling on Landis should come by early February.


A three-person CAS panel, appointed from a pool of international arbitrators, is expected to conduct the hearing. The same parties — U.S. Anti-Doping Agency attorneys and the Landis camp, led by attorney Maurice Suh — will present their cases in what is expected to be a closed hearing in Lausanne.


The Guardian Unlimited picks up this morning's Reuters version of the Landis appeal story.

The LA Times carries the updated Eddie Pells story on the Landis decision with Maurice Suh quoted as saying he is not sure if Landis will barnstorm the country for funding as he did for his first set of hearings in May. Travis Tygart speaks about funding as well, saying that USADA would rather spend its' capital on supporting clean athletes.

The Chicago Sun Times wonders if we will ever see a "bottoming out" of steroid use in sports in a column largely about Marion Jones. It does note that with all of the doping reported in cycling though just giving the yellow jersey won by Floyd Landis to the second place finisher might not be enough. It suggests that officials might need to go deep into the peloton to find some one completely clean.

The Baltimore Sun spells out what it calls examples of fake sincerity and suggests a course in how to scam the public citing how Floyd Landis and Marion Jones among others have done it.

The VeloNews posts a letter which agrees that we need to trust the cyclists to be clean, but we also need to be able to trust the labs which hold such sway over the lives of competitors. In another story the VeloNews notes the return to competition of Roberto Heras.

Sportinglife.com UK provides a short write up of yesterday's annoucement of the Floyd Landis appeal to the CAS, and they use possibly the worst picture of Landis they could find.

Blogs
Rant says here we go again and writes about the decision Floyd Landis has made to appeal his 2-1 arbitration loss to the CAS. It should come as no real surprise though since Floyd Landis is nothing if not a fighter.

Steroid Nation
muses that the Landis appeal will be Floyd's final ride to glory, or infamy. SN also notes that much of that ride will be uphill, and the race for the hearts and minds of the public was made much harder for Landis by Marion Jones.

FloydLandis.com posts the same statement about Floyd's appeal to the CAS that appeared on the FFF website yesterday.

EU Australia Online speaks mostly about the awarding of the yellow jersey to Oscar Pereiro on Sunday, but also mentions journalist John Flynn who interviewed Floyd Landis after stage 17 in the 2006 Tour de France and found his actions "suspicious" because Landis did not want to speak to the media immediately after his grueling stage 17 ride.

Team Armada
blurbs the Landis CAS appeal.


SayOw suggests it's easy to get off if you can buy the right experts:
In the story that won't end, Floyd Landis is using his 'last resort' and appealing his guilty verdict to the Court of Appeals for Sport (CAS). Of course the basis of Landis' case is that the French lab used flawed techniques that caused a false positive result for Landis. The problem here, though, is that the testing procedures and subsequent results are calculated from such complex science, I think it is very plausible that an athlete with enough resources can attempt to refute the results by merely submitting their own 'math' and procedures that may seem just as accurate as anyone else's. Even if Landis is exonerated and given back his 2006 Tour de France victory, I think most will only remember him as the guy who cheated to win the Tour de France...especially since by the time this entire case is fully resolved, most of us have already forgotten about it and the Tour de France long ago.

It doesn't appear that simple to defend against possibly incorrect accusations to us, but yes, the stain will remain no matter what the legal conclusion.


Jason Macemore's blog entry describes the CAS appeal as Landis' "last ditch effort".

Sara Best pens an eloquent blog entry today about the CAS appeal Floyd Landis has chosen to pursue. She feels that he may not be successful with his appeal, but that it takes tremendous courage to fight daunting fights, and invokes Atticus Finch:

"Courage is when you know you 're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what."


Bike Shorts
writes a quickie about the Landis appeal.


Shock and Ow
says that Floyd Landis is keeping the dream alive and his cash flowing, but doesn't have a lot of hope due to some personal experience with labs, DNA evidence, the the acceptance of that evidence on face value.

Mike Greenberg of "Mike and Mike in the Morning" feels it may be just about time to give it up and accept cheating and PEDs.

Scrapper Sports
bemoans the lack of sportsmanship, and Landis is unsurprisingly mentioned.

Club Penguin
says of the appeal (in fractured English),

But having express the arbitrator’s decision, ... Barnett, nice that you reflection the evidence clearly shows that. “But the fact that he has the right to waste everyone’s age and resources shows how fair the conformity is.'’

A comment here sagely notes:

I think the actions of the tour promoters and USADA attorneys speak a lot of the fact that these findings are preordained. The tour gives the jersey to to the 2nd place finisher despite the fact there is no final ruling.

USADA claim the appeal of a split decision where the arbitrators ruling in their favor indicate that "in the future similiar conduct by the lab could result in their ruliing the other way" is a waste of money.

In 27 years of practicing law I have never heard of someone getting the results of a judgement pending an appeal. Nor of a lawyer indicating that allowing a party to use their right to appeal is wasteful especially where the lower court has a split decision.

It is clear that the status quo is that the athelete accept their edict and the claimed rights of arbitration and appeal is a sham for public consumption but something the USADA and their ilk don't really believe is supposed to be an actual attempt to arrive at the truth

An emailer says in response to that,

As a note of law, someone blogged that a non-final order cannot result in the order being enforced. That statement is flat out wrong. The effect of the Arbitration’s panel’s order is effectively an injunction enjoining Landis from racing and requiring him to surrender the yellow jersey. Litigants sue for temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions all the time, and if a litigant loses at the initial hearing, the order is enforced until it is reversed on appeal. That is why you always want to win the first time around. (On monetary judgments, a litigant nearly always has the right to post a bond to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal, but if he/she does not the judgment may be enforced.)


Spokes And Sprockets says,

[M]aybe Floyd Landis will be seen as the catalyst for real change in the sport, or not. It is obvious that the testing procedures need to be completely overhauled (just read Genevieve Jeanson's recent comments) in order to catch the cheats and be able to quickly prosecute them. Still nobody seems to be talking much about specific changes to the testing protocols. But perhaps, when the flow of mney begins to dry up, the sport will look at real change.


The Boulder Report
takes a considered, if not somewhat cynical, view of Floyd Landis' decision to appeal his case to the CAS.

In a 24-hour news cycle, Landis is not yesterday’s headlines; he’s so far in the rearview mirror that you can barely see him anymore. And while the trial should be decided on the science rather than the sizzle, a discussion about retention times and co-eluted peaks, no matter how passionately argued, hardly makes for riveting CSI-style news. People just aren't paying that much attention anymore, especially since even a Landis win may be a resoundingly unconvincing victory.


Finger Food catches up, having been distracted by unusual post-season Baseball in Philly:

Let’s get this out of the way again: Floyd Landis got screwed. I don’t know if he used PEDs and I guess I really don’t care (or maybe I do seeing as how much coffee I have been drinking lately – drugs are drugs). The point is the testing process, the screening and the entire circus that went on with the French lab, the UCI, WADA and USADA is borderline criminal and completely unethical. I know there are some good people who work at those places, but they need to reevaluate what’s going on.

Besides, if the tests are performed incorrectly, then the results are bs. Even the two arbitrators hand-picked by USADA to deliver the desired result by the government-funded agency claimed alluded to this in the decision.

In fact, in a strong rebuke from career bureaucrats, the two arbitrators who ruled against Landis wrote that more sloppy work by the French lab could lead to a dismissal of a case.

Shudder the thought.

Dave Zabriske, Landis’ former teammate and current pro rider, summed it up perfectly.

“That’s kind of strange to me,” Zabriske told WSCN.com. “Why could it be grounds for dismissal in the future and not now?”



Infospigot remembers what Floyd Landis's Mom Arlene said about her boy when he lost his USADA decision. Info also notes others who have decided not to go to court due to the danger of the battle becoming their only job, he says welcome to that workforce Floyd.

ArmchairGM tells Floyd Landis to just SHUT UP, and asks the question is anybody else getting sick of him?


Everyman Triathlon
cannot begin to understand why people continue to think that Floyd Landis could be innocent, he sure doesn't.

Dugard can't escape the comparisons, and goes nihilistically cynical:
[T]hough it makes sense for Jones to return her medals, just as it makes some sort of bitter sense for Floyd Landis's yellow jersey to be presented to the unworthy Oscar Pereiro next week, it's more of a protocol issue than a doing-the-right thing issue. Doping is everywhere at the highest levels of sport. If we're going to have Jones give her medals back, then I'm all for Waldemar Cierpinski giving back that `76 Olympic marathon gold he stole from Frank Shorter.

Vai's View says Floyd Landis could learn something from Marion Jones, just what is hard to fathom.

Sport in Society wonders if Floyd Landis is guilty or innocent, and mentions that he has been through every court of law imaginable. Not quite, it only seems that way.

Smithers Minneapolis still believes in the testing agencies, and if they say you're guilty, just give it up. And
Floyd will go down in history as a turd.

Events
An emailer passes a link to information on a Chicago Bar Association Continuing Legal Education seminar on "Legal and Ethical Issues of Testing for Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports". Offered as an expert on the Panel is... Greg LeMond.


15 comments:

Daniel said...

I think the actions of the tour promoters and USADA attorneys speak a lot of the fact that these findings are preordained. The tour gives the jersey to to the 2nd place finisher despite the fact there is no final ruling. USada claim teh appeal of a split decision where the arbitrators ruling in their favor indicate that in the future similiar conduct by the lab could result in their rulinig the other way" is a waste of money.
In 27 years of practicing law I have never heard of someone geting the results of a judgement pending an appeal. Nor of a lawyere indicating that allowing a party to use their right to appeal si wasteful especially whrere the lower court has a split decion.
It is clear that teh status quo is that the athelete accept their edict and the claimed rights of arbitration and appeal is a sham for public consumption but something the USADA and their ilk don't really believe is suppose to be an actual attempt to arrive at the truth

jrdbutcher said...

daniel,
Well said, if not well spelled. Guilty of (mis)spelling abuse here too.

Daniel said...

I am always in a hurry in the morning and reading these comments and opinions of people who work in the press or are supported by my tax dollars just riles me to the point I am to hurried in my typing. I normally let my secretary correct my errors and grammer so I sound like a lawyer not a third grader. Also these blogs got to get a spell checker.

ddt240 said...

Completely off topic, but Firefox 2 has a built in spell checker that works pretty well. I believe that there is a spell check plug-in for IE7 as well.

Faro said...

Daniel, I would ask, How much of this poor excuse for a process up until now have you seen in the past 27 years practicing law? I would guess not a whole lot.

Russ said...

What a nice birthday present!
Go Floyd!!! USADA was stage 16!
Remember.. hydrate, hydrate, hydrate!
Russ

tbv@trustbut.com said...

Daniel, if you use current versions of Firefox of Seamonkey, you get automatic spell checking in all text fields.

And you have far fewer virus problems.

TBV

Daniel said...

Thanks to everybody on the their software recomendtion. I hopefully will appear much more intelligent once I have them installed. As to Faro. There is no legal system or claim resolution process I am aware of where one side has won 100% of the claims they are involved with. There are misguided judges or arbitrators or mediators in every area of the law but even they do not decide for one side on every case before them.
There are bad lawyeres, arrogant lawyers and damn stupid lawyers as well but with the quality of the lawyers in this case I would never have thought one side would claim that it is a waste of money to appeal a split decision. You would look really bad if you then lose on appeal. But in this case both the tour athority and the USADA Lawyers seem to be acknowledging the game is fixed. They know the outcome without knowing what will be produced. Remember this appeal is a de novo hearing and new evidence may be produced especially in light of the fact all of the tesimony and documents are published and there has been more then ample time for those with knowledge to sift though them. In light of that to say as USADA is saying that there is no chance of Landis prevailing before they even know what evidence he will submit is a sign that they know the outcome and therefore it is just a waste of time they will prevail no matter what the evidence shows. This obviously was correct at the original hearing.

wschart said...

Or they may just be posturing: "Look, we'd like to spend all this money on catching other dopers, but this Landis guy is taking up our time and money. If he'd just fold, we could get on with busting the other dopers." Based on the Landaluze case, it isn't positive to me that CAS is a rigged game. WADA, USADA, and UCI all seem prone to doing a lot of posturing, IMO. when playing in their own house, they have the deck stacked for them and can pretty well predict the outcome. But it may be a different story with CAS. Time will tell.

Daniel said...

I note someone has emailed on a point of law indicating I am "flat out wrong" on alowing an award on a judgement under appeal. I beg to differ. An injunction is not a final award it is to maintain a certain status until a final outcome is determined. Declaring the 2nd place finisher 'the tour winner' where previously they declared Landis the winner where there is no final decision is not a similiar situation.
In order to appeal a monetary judgement and prevent it from being enforced you must file a bond. The tour winner gets a little bit more then a jersey and a pretty cup he also gets money which I assume they are also awarding to the 2nd place finisher presumably without him posting a bond. In this case I asume they never gave Landis the prize money so who gets it?

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

"Travis Tygart speaks about funding as well, saying that USADA would rather spend its' capital on supporting clean athletes."

USADA is the US Anti-Doping Agency, not US Support Clean Athletes Agency (USSCAA). One assumes USADA and its head, Mr. Tygart, will only remain in business spending capital against doping. That is what it spends its capital on.

Daniel said...

Bill
Great Comment. How these guys get away saying this stuff. What would they be doing as an agency against doping if they were supporting clean atheletes. I assume the answer is harrasing them with bogus claims.

MMan said...

USADA is the US Anti-Doping Agency, not US Support Clean Athletes Agency (USSCAA). One assumes USADA and its head, Mr. Tygart, will only remain in business spending capital against doping. That is what it spends its capital on.

That's just weird. That's like Mike Nifong saying his business is rooting for the Duke lacrosse team.

jrdbutcher said...

WRT the Chigago Bar Association CLE seminar on "Legal and Ethical Issues of Testing for Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports", where Greg LeMond is offered as an expert on the panel..........

Okay, which way does LeMond want it??? LeMond claims he rode clean. To my knowledge, he has never offered any specific proof, with personal knowledge, of a professional cyclist doping. He has made blanket accusations without anything of substance to back-up his claims.

How does a cyclist without direct knowledge of doping become an expert in the field???? Has he completed some related post graduate degree????

3-Time TdF Champion is proof he was a great rider. It's not proof he is an expert about doping in sport, unless, perhaps, he knows or has done more than he's told us, so far?