Saturday, March 15, 2008

Saturday Roundup

The AP posts an Eddie Pells report on the fiscal costs of the Landis case to the American taxpayer through USADA, as well as to Landis himself, who is said to be in financial difficulty. Requests for a statement from Landis or his representatives by the AP were unanswered. Pells' research estimates that the case has cost USADA between 5-10% of its budget. The closed CAS hearing takes place as if the previous USADA hearing at Pepperdine never happened with testimony being presented as if new. The hearing starts in a Manhattan law office on Wednesday and is scheduled to last approximately five days. Travis Tygrat repeated a statement he's made before:

"Generally, we would always prefer to spend our time and resources in supporting clean athletes and not having to prosecute guilty ones," USADA CEO Travis Tygart said Friday.

Which makes as little sense now as it did the first few times he's rolled it out. The job of USADA is to prosecute cases, not to "support clean athletes" by anything other than "management" of cases. Pells goes on to note that USOC paid for the first round, but not the appeal which is on USADA's dime, nothing that Landis has never had any intention of competing in the Olympics.

The VeloNews addresses the reasons given for the split in A.C.E. between Paul Scott and Paul Strauss. As suggested earlier in cycling forums Scott resigned from the agency due to his continuing support for the Landis case. Former Rock Racing DS Frankie Andreu is critical of Landis and Scott for working together on the science of his case, but due to WADA rules finding a scientist to testify on an athlete's behalf is easier said than done, as Landis notes:
“I have no choice but to hire somebody, because I don’t know anything about science ... But as soon as I hire someone, everyone is saying, ‘Oh, Floyd’s paying him.’ Well, what choice do I have? You’re stuck either way.

All of the people who express skepticism of Scott wrap it in the position that there is something unseemly with someone involved in ACE taking a position in any case, suggesting conflict of interest. We don't see that. Last time we checked, ACE never tested Landis, nor was ACE hired by Landis' team. It looks to us like the same kind of double-think "ethics" as the WADA code -- a false propriety getting in the way of looking for truth and justice, as if those were some kind of hot-potatoes one should avoid seeking.

And hey, Ace, if someone you were testing is accused of something, and your data doesn't support the conclusion, you darned well better become involved, or those folks you're sticking constantly might not be so appreciative of your efforts. Independence doesn't mean you never take a stand, it means you're not obliged to take a particular stand before the facts are in.

In an earlier edition of CyclingNews Bernard Laporte, the French Secretary for Sport, says that the French cycling federation has come under the protection of the agency who says that all the federation is doing is taking its sport back from the UCI.
, machine translated, reports The Man came for an OoC test while Kevin van Impe was in the middle of making arrangements for the funeral of his son, who died six hours after birth. No, he could not come back later, or it would have been a "missed test":
"Luckily I had written in my whereabout's that I this week mainly would be at the hospital. Now I can so change next week write that I can meet at Monday in the crematorium in Lochristi. That system is simply not humane", a bitter Kevin van Impe said.

Velonews has an English version, and it doesn't come off any better.

Rant thinks that Pat McQuaid and Martin Dugard have something in common this week, they both spoke before they thought about what they were going to say. Rant cites McQuaid's odd doublespeak on Alberto Contador, who he now supports but might ban IF Contador can somehow get the courts to allow him to race the TdF, and Martin Dugard in regards to his turnaround on Floyd Landis' guilt, which he fails to rationalize with any kind of explanation. Rant wonders if maybe Mr. Dugard just doesn't get the science of the case and has decided to find Floyd guilty on the basis of, a hunch? Open mouth, insert foot.

Bicycle.NET has Larry Behrendt write his version of Suh's opening statement for next week's appeal hearing. It focuses on the Elephant in the Room, being the fundamental unfairness of the process as embodied in the actions of the greater WADA community: They're all dopers, so what does it matter?

Potholes and Roadapples writes about hometown boy Floyd Landis' upcoming CAS hearing to begin on Wednesday in NYC. B Harris notes that this hearing will not be covered live either by web stream or blogging.

Velo Vortmax has much more to say about the Dugard drubbing of Floyd Landis' reputation as he notes Dugard's defensive response to outraged "quasi" cycling fans, VV included:
So, Martin, you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. I don't believe you. I don't believe that Floyd Landis told you in confidence that Lance Armstrong used PEDs. Also, I do not believe that Floyd Landis told Greg LeMond that he used PEDs in the 2006 Tour de France. In America a man has the opportunity to confront his accusers. This is called due process. This opportunity was denied Floyd Landis in the kangaroo court of an AAA hearing. LeMond was whisked out of the court room in a rush before anyone could cross examine his motives and agenda. What a farce.

Phantom Reflections thinks that if the UCI says it will back Alberto Contador in a court fight against the ASO why not back Levi Leipheimer too? Why not Floyd Landis who PR feels has been the victim of a smear campaign? Why not indeed!

20 Million Minutes gives us a tribute to Richard Burke, the founder of Trek Bikes, who passed away earlier this week.


Unknown said...


My suspicion is that you wrote the article for If so, once again, great work! If not, go give it a read. I particularly like the litany of counter evidence that the arbs ignored to arrive at conviction.


Unknown said...

A few insignificant typos, but an excellent mock openning to the CAS hearing. Well put!!!

Larry said...

d-bob, jrd, thanks!

Yeah, I saw the typos after it was posted. I only proofed it about a hundred times. You gotta admire people like TBV and Rant, who seem to be able to post typo-free.

strbuk said...

Uh excuse me Larry, TBV typo free? I think not!!!!


Unknown said...

Someone seriously needs to answer for this one:

While making arrangements for his deceased baby boy, Kevin Van Imp is required to submit to a drug test, right then, or face a suspension.

I want to see the anti-doping, at all costs, caped crusaders explain this one away. That was pretty f*&%ed up. Golden rule anyone?

Larry said...

str, thank you. That's the biggest smile I've had this month.

Seriously, the overall quality of writing on this site - you, TBV, the Judge, Ali - is very high. I'm never going to like waking up in the morning, but reading you with my first cup of coffee is always a pleasure.

strbuk said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bill Mc said...

The incident described in the Velonews article mentioned by jrd above calls to mind the comment by Joseph Welch addressed to Senator McCarthy at the Army-McCarthy Hearings: "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" There does not seem to be any decency left in the anti-doping establishment.

Mike Solberg said...

That Eddie Pells piece is irritating. The implication seems to be the Floyd (and all others) shouldn't bother to defend themselves, because it costs the tax-payer money.

I'm sure Floyd would be quite happy to get out of the government/Olympic complex altogether. Then it wouldn't cost the tax payer anything.


bobble said...

Wait a sec! I asked about a month ago whether Floyd and the enemy would get to present new cases and Judge Hue (I think) said both sides agreed to go with what was presented in Malibu. The first paragraph says both sides get to present as if the arbitration never happened.

Which one does not belong?

PEM said...

Larry, very nice article at

Typos? Meh. The important things are it is easy to read and understood.

I hope Floyd is feeling consoled (whether he wants it or not) with the responses Dugard is receiving from the faithful (or the science has not proven otherwise) supporters.

Larry said...

pem, thanks!

I now have to decide whether I want to do this again ... and what I'd write about in column no. 2?

DBrower said...


the parties have the option of starting from scratch, but it is unlikely they will do so, since they have piles of testimony on record, and an award to discuss and argue.

It is far more likely to be a cleaned up presentation of the significant issues, with points that got botched by either side clarified in presentation.

I do not believe there are going to be many surprises in store from either side.

One major issue is going to be how USADA responds to the "different column" issue; The remainder is going to be whether the holes in the AAA award are going to be be seen to be dispositive.

I don't expect to have much to report during the hearing, but hope to have a lot when it is over.