USADA was formed on behalf of clean athletes to ensure fair play and the integrity of the rules, plain and simple. No case is worth compromising the rules and impugning our integrity and credibility. When USADA is under its legal budget as it was in 2006, the money is allocated to research and education. We would much rather spend money on research and education than fighting over whether a person has committed a doping offense.
What is frustrating from our end is when athletes who know they have been doping waste USADA’s resources looking to escape accountability.
The bottom line is that when bringing a case, USADA’s sole objective is absolutely a search for the truth. No athlete who has not engaged in doping behavior has any reason to fear or otherwise attempt to avoid the USADA process.
First, every athlete accused of a doping violation is innocent until proven guilty. The ADA has the burden to prove the athlete is guilty. Also, every accused athlete has the opportunity to have the facts of their case examined and may receive a reduction in their sanction if exceptional circumstances exist. The system as currently constructed strikes the balance of protecting athletes from truly exceptional circumstances without compromising the integrity of the system by allowing an athlete to simply blame someone else for the substance in their body.
USADA general counsel Travis Tygart said he is barred under confidentiality rules from discussing any specifics of the Landis case, but added, "We're ready to proceed. We want hearings done as soon as possible."
before USADA decided it wanted to test all of Landis' other B samples from the 2006 Tour de France,. This was finally completed, at no small expense to all parties, in April 2007, just weeks before the May hearing.