Reading the award, we make the following quick observations.
First, it is annoying that CAS publishes them in a PDF format that precludes text search. A kind reader has produced a searchable version that may be of use to many people. We'll mirror it when possible.
- The award makes a point of the political aspects of the case by quoting Mr. Young castigating Landis' "frontal attack on the entire anti-doping system." (para 21)
- The award does not appear to address the "changing story" offered by USADA at all.
- Unlike many "battles of experts", whenever there was a dispute, the award completely accepted the USADA position. While USADA witnesses are believed despite contradictions, some of Landis' witnesses are called out in detail.
- Not a single ISL violation is found, and had there been, none would have affected the AAF.
- Generally, key points are dismissed briefly with little discussion, while browbeating goes on at length.
- Because visual matching isn't prohibited by the ISL, it is accepted; and COFRAC didn't complain, so it is OK. (paragraphs 107/108)
- A test can have matrix interference and be valid; the method should avoid it, an individual test need not. (para 131)
- USADA arguments about reprocessed data accepted completely (para 162)
- ISL only requires compliance with "concepts" of chain of custody, not literal compliance. (para 178) Same conclusion on whiteout (para 215.)
- Testimony is OK to correct documentation problems; the column issue is dismissed by testimony. (para 189)
- The lack of validation of the single metabolite standard is briefly held (a) not to be an ISL violation; and (b) could not have caused the AAF!? (para 195)
- Manual integration with no records is OK, "as long as it is clear what parameters were set". (para 209)
- Amory's metabolism arguments dismissed briefly (para 232).
- Landis is thrown a single bone: DeBoer's presence at the B sample isn't a waiver. (para 239).
- But it is taken back: DeBoer should not have been polite. (paras 238 and 240).
- Alternate samples not considered, as unnecessary for decision. It seems they might have been have it been necessary, but made moot (para 241)
- There is "no evidence" to support any of Landis' malfeasence arguments. (para 257).
259. There is a clear distinction between administrative deficiencies, bad laboratory practice, procedural error, or other honest inadequacy on the one hand and dishonesty or bad faith on the other. Some of the Appellant's expert witnesses appeared insufficiently aware of this distinction.
- Davis excoriated at length, and USADA's complaints held valid. (paras 260-264)
- Landis first clear voluntary suspension was the AFLD letter of Jan 30 2007, so that starts the suspension. Leadville doesn't count as a problem. (paras 282, 283).
- If there was any litigation misconduct, it was by Landis. (para 289)
The above is a collection of key facts about the appeal, not our opinion and analysis, which will follow. It appears to us to be a very political document. As we said long ago in, It's the Olympics, Stupid:
Landis has a hard task trying to climb this Olympus. The gods up top are trying to smite him for suggesting they are imperfect, because that is bad for business.
Landis has been smote. No imperfections were found. Business (Beijing) proceeds as usual.