Maurice Suh and Daniel Weiss represented Landis at both the AAA hearing and the CAS appeal. Rather than write anew, they pointed us to a piece in the Los Angeles Daily Journal in January 2008, from before the CAS hearing. We hadn't seen it before.
[Back to the Introduction]
The phrase ``presumed innocent until proven guilty'' is not just a tag line for legal dramas such as ``Law and Order'' --- it is a core principle of our legal and societal fabric. The practical effect of this principle is remarkable, but one that is largely lost in doping cases. Presuming that an athlete is guilty based on the test result alone assumes that the antidoping tests are infallible. This is not true. As seen in recent months, accredited laboratories do conduct tests improperly. For instance, the two European World AntiDoping Agencyaccredited laboratories that tested American sprinter LaTasha Jenkins were found to have violated a clearly established testing standard. Antidoping systems must take into account the fact that the laboratory results and methods are not always correct, and should place the onus, in each and every case, on the testing authority to establish not only that a valid test for performance enhancing drugs was positive, but also that the test was performed in a scientifically reliable manner.
What has been lost among the scandals, admissions and denials of the last several weeks [Jan 2008] is the great opportunity that all sports have to craft a comprehensive system that achieves clean competition without sacrificing the rights of the athlete.