CyclingNews reports on a reversal, perhaps only temporary, of a ban given Bjorn Leukemans for testosterone use (given by the team doctor, unknown to Bjorn):
[T]he Belgian appealed the ban and now, the Belgian Council of State ruled that the disciplinary commission's procedure was flawed, and ordered a new procedure to take place, with different judges.
On Tuesday, the Council of State ruled that Leukemans' ban was no longer in place. "There is no ban, because the punishment is in no relation to the faults committed by the accused person," said magistrate Luc Hellin according to Belgian media.
The Leukemans doping case will thus start from scratch, with the rider theoretically free to race, if he had a team and a license. "The court's intention is that the matter should be fully treated within one year," added Hellin.
... "I'm glad that there is someone who follows my position," he said to Sporza. "I know that there was something in my urine, but the way in which it got there also plays a role. It was certainly not intentional. hopefully, this is the light at the end of the tunnel.
We don't understand a lot about this. Why is this in court and not ADA jurisdiction? Under what rules is it being adjudicated? Under the WADA Code, the way it got there doesn't matter, strict liability, and all.
ESPN reports that American sprinter Michelle Collins, who had been caught up in the BALCO dragnet, has been reinstated early by the IAAF ostensibly for cooperating with USADA:
Originally suspended for eight years, Collins appealed and wound up with a four-year ban through July 17, 2008.
"We certainly support and have supported Michelle Collins' reinstatement once she came forward and rightfully assisted USADA in our efforts to rid the sport of doping," USADA's CEO, Travis Tygart, said in a telephone interview.
The CyclingNews Letters column contains a few interesting comments on the mysteries of the CAS and "St." David Millar, among myriad other topics.
Outside Magazine's June print edition will have an article:
Ex–pro cyclist Joe Papp got away with doping for years, but then he spilled the beans at the Floyd Landis hearing. What did he get for it? About 10,000cc of grief.
The BBC has a copy of a letter written by Victor "BALCO" Conte sharing information about doping and anti-doping practice. He isn't impressed with USADA:
In late 2003 I advised USADA about the importance of random testing during the fourth quarter of the year. They did initially seem to follow my advice because they increased the number of fourth-quarter tests in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
However, they failed to continue this practice in 2007. Why would USADA decide to perform only 15% of their annual out-of-competition tests during the fourth quarter? Let's not forget that this is the off season before the upcoming summer Olympic Games. This is equivalent to a fisherman knowing that the fish are ready to bite and then consciously deciding that it is time to reel in his line and hook, lean his fishing pole up against a tree and take a nap.
Given the chance, USADA will likely blame Landis for having drained their budget at that critical period in 2007. Therefore, if there is a big medal count for the US, Landis should surely receive credit for it.
WADAwatch looks at supplements, and a recent win in a civil action by Jacobs.
TripleCrankset notes some softening by Mr. Pound now that he is officially out of the loop. Or this might have dated back to when he was burnishing his image for the CAS chair.