Monday, November 24, 2008

Irregular Report 42

Here and There
CyclingNews reports on a Thursday filing in federal court by lawyers representing Floyd Landis with this reaction from WADA head David Howman:

David Howman, the WADA General Director, told AFP, "There will be no compromise made," in the fight against doping, even though the agency has nearly used up the allotted $1.8 million to litigate the Landis case.


There's one on Velonews too. Both of these seem to be caught in some kind of time loop, because there isn't anything new in the docket, and there hasn't been for quite a while, since we last reported on 9-Nov. Maybe someone's RSS reader did the "month old" trick, and it was taken as a new story. VN also got a late mention of Landis and OUCH, formerly Healthnet/Maxxis. Flash -- Landis had his hip replaced.

VN also carries word that Kohl has gotten 2 years for his TdF infraction, bouncing him from third on the podium and taking away his polka dots. Pez says Kohl wasn't exactly cooperative during the hearing.

The Telegraph reports Rugby player Scott MacLeod has succeeded in skating on a T/E violation by using an alcohol defense.

Rant "rants" about the Cycling Weekly op-ed piece being discussed lately on TBV which admonishes "cheaters" like Floyd Landis for defending themselves against doping allegations. Rant them goes on to discuss some comments made ysterday in the blog Steroid Nation.

I ride, I write tells Landis to shut up and ride the bike; comments disagree.

Ron blurbs us while talking about the Floyd Landis piece in the VN . Thanks!

Velo Vortmax writes about the differing reactions to different "dopers" in cycling and wonders if Floyd shouldn't have taken Pat McQuaids's "sage" advice after all.

13 comments:

DR said...

Reading the current pieces about the Landis federal case, I suspect that Velonews and Cyclingnews are about two months behind. Note that the original Landis filing was on September 25, a Thursday. There are no new filings showing up on PACER and the "current" news does not seem to describe anything that we have not already seen. Anyhow I'd put my money on one of these sources have posted the story without checking the currency and the other simply following.

daniel m (a/k/a Rant) said...

DR,

Interesting that there's no new filings showing up on PACER. It definitely sounds like someone recycled a story, or held it for a slow news day.

Shame on the writer and/or copyeditor for not checking their facts first.

strbuk said...

*I* should have checked Pacer, I assumed that this was a "refiling" of the case after its insufficiencies were addressed by the defense. Maybe someone can illuminate us.

str

DR said...

Rant-
One could certainly be led to believe that someone merely read this http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3611019 and failed to note the date that it was published.
That's my theory.

Cyclingnews had previously reported the federal filing.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/sep08/sep29news2

I thought that Velonews had reported it too, but I do not find it there in a search of the VN site. Shame on VN for being late to the party and shame on CN for apparently following blindly.

Strbuk -
Unless something else happens the present schedule in the federal case is:
1. The Motion shall be continued to December 22, 2008
2. Opposition papers [USADA] shall be filed with electronic notice by December 8, 2008, and reply papers [Floyd] shall be filed with electronic notice by December 15, 2008.

("Eightzero") said...

Today's edition of "eightzero wants to stir the pot and be even more annoyiong than usual:"

Alberto Contador recently completed a medical procedure. See:

http://www.velonews.com/article/85367/contador-surgery-called-a-success

I assume this wasn't purely for cosmetic reasons, but VN doesn't (as is their practice these days) explain further.

Inquiry: why isn't this doping? Isn't a medical procedure for intent to increase one's athletic capability...somehow...you know...er...um...make it time to call Dick?

Now that we've figured that out, think "Birmingham Hip." Then "my cancer treaments increased my ability as a cyclist." Then buy Rant's book.

Discuss?

daniel m (a/k/a Rant) said...

Thanks for the plug, eightzero. Most appreciated.

I believe CNN said something earlier today or yesterday about Contador having a deviated septum, which was part of the reason for his surgery. So, yeah, it wasn't for cosmetic reasons. And it will make him able to breath easier, if done right.

Heaven help us if normal medical procedures for run-of-the-mill problems start being considered "performance enhancement" or "doping."

wschart said...

There's something in the rules for a TUE that the treatment not result in greater ability than the athlete would have had if he did not have the condition for which the TUE was granted. I think the same sort of logic should be applied to any surgical procedures. If you have a bad heart, and it can be surgically repaired such that it is normal, no problem. But if you could have your heart surgically enhanced to be better than normal, then I think that should be disallowed.

Bill Mc said...

A bit off topic, but it seems that drug testing has opened some new opportunities for entrepreneurs. Who would have thought?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7747833.stm

My apologies if the URL gets bent.

TiGirl said...

WADA has almost used up the allotted 1.8 million dollars to litigate the Landis Case???????

Didn't someone in the WADA camp say that they were struggling for funds for the Landis case, or something to that effect? (or that it had drained their resources or something???)

They allotted 1.8 million? They must've known this wasn't an open and shut case, or they planned to pay their own a whole lot for getting the case to lean WADA's way.

jrdbutcher said...

Not directly on point wrt Floyd, but yet another example of the alphabet soup bending/breaking their own rules when it suits them:

Beltrán banned for two years:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/nov08/nov26news

I understand
· The point is probably moot, as Beltran is unlikely to want to race in France again.
· AFLD was responsible for the testing at the 2008 TdF, not affiliated with UCI.

I don’t understand:
· How Bordry/AFLD has standing to declare Beltran’s 2 year ban under WADA Code.

I may be wrong, but I understood:
· A WADA authorized lab is empowered to submit testing results to the athlete, athlete’s team, athlete’s federation.
· The athlete is responsible to stop racing until there is a ruling on the AAF.
· The team is responsible to not enter the athlete in a race(s) until eligible.
· The athlete, team, and/or federation can make the results of a B-Sample (or A-Sample if the athlete declines testing the B, or admits to the accusation) public.
· The athlete’s federation is responsible for deciding the sanction, within certain guidelines.
· WADA, UCI, … can appeal a federation’s sanction if they are of the opinion the sanction falls outside accepted guidelines.

Beltran is not French and does not hold license issued by the French Federation.

Where does AFLD/Bordry get off setting a sanction for Beltran without running afoul of the WADA Code???

("Eightzero") said...

jrd, your questions are appropriate. I think it possible AFLD/Bordry are acting alone. There may or may not be any connection to WADA. IIRC, entry by a team/rider into the 2008 TdF was made directly with AFLD and ASO. There was no connection to UCI and the incorporation via that to the WADA code. The conditions of a cyclists domestic racing license, and the incorporation of WADA code provision through that are lost and therefore irrelevant. I do not know what provisions AFLD and ASO made in place of that.

It is likely AFLD has the authority to ban riders from racing in France. In the US, this power comes from the Ted Stevens (!) Amateur Spors Act, and the several US National Governing Bodies, such as USAC. USAC can refuse to allow non-licensed riders from a USAC sanctioned event.

Such as Leadville. Not.

PEM said...

First of all, happy Thanksgiving (tomorrow) to my American neighbours.

Now to my point. I recently read on other sites, people are writing Landis should just quit as both parties have already spent (wasted) close to $2 million each in litigation costs, and money could have been put to better use. So consider the following.

If Landis was guilty and WADA followed the policies, protocols, and documentations they were suppose to, how much would it have cost? There would be no early release of information and defamation of character. There would be no chain of custody issue. Controls and procedures would have been documented, proper columns used, clean graphs generated, no need for guessing. Landis would have no defense. No expensive lawyers needed. End of story. Only a few thousand would have been spent.

Now the reality. Release the information early. Questionable lab results. Questionable lab practice. WADA better get good lawyers if they want to win this. Set up road blocks. You can’t have documents. Retest. Make new rules. Landis better get good lawyers. Landis better work on some public support because the system is so tight, it does not look good.

So, why do you think it is costing both sides close to $2 million so far?

And no-one should cry that the money could have gone to feed the hungry. The money is going into other people’s pockets. No actual resources are being wasted. Think of all the uneaten food being scraped off the plates and into the garbage this weekend, while others are starving around the world. That is the shameful waste.

jrdbutcher said...

Okay, Bordry/AFLD has the right to sanction a rider from competing in France, even when that rider holds, and was competing, under an internationally recognized license???

The internationally recognized license and the WADA Code are supposed to contain important elements of uniformity meant to prevent jingoistic and capricious sanctions, bans, …..

It seams Bordry/AFLD wants to have its cake and eat it too. Should that be “let them eat cake” or “cake or death”? I’m not sure.

In any case, it seems Bordry/AFLD do indeed want it both ways. “Pierre Bordry, AFLD director, said Beltrán and the International Cycling Union have been notified of the ban, and that he expects the sport's governing body to uphold it in its competitions by applying the World Anti-Doping Agency's code.”

Bordry conveniently ignores that his assertion flies in the face of the concept of uniformity contained within the WADA Code. He conveniently ignores the fact that as a race run against UCI rules, he is somehow expecting the party he was waging war with to support an unsupportable (by rule) assertion.

Say it often enough, feign authority, and a good number of people will tend to believe your BS is correct.