Monday, June 30, 2008

Landis Loses


In a press release just published, CAS rejected Landis appeal, and assessed costs of $100,000.

Lausanne, 30 June 2008 – The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed the appeal filed by the American cyclist Floyd Landis and has confirmed the initial decision issued by a Panel of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) on 20 September 2007. Consequently, Floyd Landis is disqualified from the Tour de France 2006 and is suspended for a period of two years starting from 30 January 2007. Floyd Landis has been ordered to pay the sum of USD 100'000 to the United States Anti-doping Agency (USADA) as a contribution towards its costs in the CAS arbitration.


The CAS website is melting down; we've got the award, and it is mirrored here if you have trouble.

Analysis to follow, when possible.

4 comments:

Ken said...

"1. The LNDD is a WADA-accredited laboratory which benefits from the presumption that it conducted sample analysis in accordance with international laboratory standards.

2. The athlete has not rebutted this presumption by showing that a departure from the International Standard occurred.”

Those two statements are all that's needed to tell me it was a political decision. The first one tells you they'll stick with whatever the lab says, the second is a lie.

Byron P said...

VII. #76.

Dismisses the WADA connection of the USADA experts... almost by definition that connection makes them biased.

jr said...

Argh. Disappointing, but no surprise, since the labs define themselves as infallible. Two other things jumped out at me on first read:

They weren't happy that there were so many arguments: "... should have presented a much more focused challenge before this Panel...."

And it's fine to screw up, so long as you don't lie about it: "The alleged inconsistencies in LNDD documents and testimony revealed, if anything, in some instances less than ideal laboratory practices, but not lies, fraud, forgery or cover-ups."

MMan said...


1. The LNDD is a WADA-accredited laboratory which benefits from the presumption that it conducted sample analysis in accordance with international laboratory standards.


OK, let's take them at their word. They're infallible.

Therefore, this was cold-blooded deliberate corruption from beginning to end.