Competitor Magazine reports that Floyd Landis and his legal team are very interested observers of the results of the LaTasha Jenkins vs. USADA case. Jenkins won her appeal with USADA and therefore is the first ever athlete to defeat the anti-doping agency.
The NY Times reports this morning that the Baltimore Orioles, who had some of their own accused of steroid use, have broken rank with the rest of MLB and have criticized the Mitchel Report for its use of unsubstantiated accusations. The team also urges each player be given due process and be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Brandweek Magazine wonders if there is anyone left who can safely endorse anything with all of the various sports scandals that persist today. They then snark that Floyd Landis is in the "we won't touch him with a ten foot pole" category, and go further saying no one wanted to sign Floyd up to endorse anything anyway.
The VeloNews Monday Mailbag still contains many responses to Michael Ball, controversial head of Rock racing, who has definite opinions on the ADAs. One of the more interesting letters makes a couple of pertinent points:
The reaction to Michael Ball's statements have been as fiery as the man himself. Personally, I find him and his attitude both refreshing and disturbing at the same time. But one thing I find even more disturbing is the "You're either with us or against us" attitude copped by some regarding Ball's criticism of the Anti-Doping establishment.
If WADA and USADA are part of the solution to the scourge of doping they are the failed part. If, eventually, the war against doping in cycling is won, it will not be because of the actions and policies of the Anti-Doping establishment but in spite of those actions and policies.
You can't "enforce" your way out of a problem that you do not understand. And by now it seems clear that WADA and USADA and their ilk do not understand the problem. Heck, they can't even come up with a readily comprehensible definition of doping itself. Does that surprise you? Ask them to explain why EPO is illegal and Hypobaric Chambers are not.
As a former professional youth coach in another sport I recognize the evils of drugs and have seen their effects permeate down to frighteningly young ages. But the current Anti-Doping establishment not only does not have a monopoly on truth, it seems they haven't got a clue.
Michael A. Gardiner
San Diego, California
False45th finds that seemingly only Hannah Teter is worth supporting with all the sports "ne'er do wells" out there. You can guess who made that list.
Racejunkie can multi-task and proves it by penning a 2008 cycling "preview" which in June has Floyd Landis aging so much with all that has happened that he is eligible for Social Security. That may be stretching it, just a bit.
WADA Watch finds a case the agencies lost at CAS because they ignored the "fairness" clause in the rule they were trying to enforce. He points again to bad drafting of the rules resulting in expensive continued lititgation, and thinks the same is going to happen with the new "aggravated circumstance" rules.
Wages of Wins thinks a solution may be to pin PED enforcement (for baseball) onto the union, away from the teams and the league. Skeptical discussion follows in comments. He also points to...
Sabernomics, which presents some interesting economic (revenue) data from baseball's "steroid era". Similar numbers for cycling over the last decade would be interesting to compare.