Sunday Roundup

News
MSNBC posts the first comments from WADA chairman Dick Pound on the Landis arbitration result. Pound maintains that even though the Landis samples may have been handled improperly, the results from those samples still stands:

"I think if you read it carefully you'll see that maybe some of the early stages of this thing were not as precise and crisp as they could have been, what they found is synthetic testosterone, you can run but can't hide.''
"For the moment we just have to say that they speak for themselves and you can interpret them as well as we can,'' Pound said of the results. "Our policy is that if there is an appeal, we're probably going to get involved one way or another and therefore it's better if we don't say anything until the delay for appeal has expired or an appeal has been filed.''

Pound commented on the Landis arbitration result at a press conference following meetings of WADA's executive board.


The Globe and Mail finds Lance Armstrong in Vancouver for a cancer fund raiser. Armstrong refused to comment on the recent Landis arbitration decision saying:

“I'd love to answer the question but unfortunately I'm out of that business,” said Mr. Armstrong. “I'm here to fight cancer. I haven't looked online. I still love the bike and ride all the time but on the competitive side I'm just not engaged.”
He said cycling issues now are “just a distraction for me.”

The News Tribune's Tony Hawley thinks he is reading correctly between the lines of Friday's statements from Floyd Landis lawyer Maurice Suh.

The Lawrence Journal World posts a thoughtfully written op-ed piece on the Landis case results, and on the use of PEDs by athletes in general. Stating that not only do athletes need to compete without illegal enhancement, but also the testing done on them needs to be above reproach the column concludes:

The first step, of course, is to work on drug testing to make it as consistent and accurate as possible. Fewer loopholes will mean fewer opportunities for athletes to avoid detection and punishment. Reliable tests will make rigorous enforcement possible.
It’s sad for any sports spectator to have to wonder whether an outstanding athletic performance was made possible only through the use of “dope.” It’s even sadder for athletes to feel they must subject their bodies to such treatment in order to compete at the highest levels.

The San Francisco Chronicle's Scott Ostler tries to make a clumsy point about racial equality by comparing recent events in OJ Simpson's life to that of Floyd Landis'. It seemed only a matter of time before the two names would appear in the same column.

The Salt Lake Tribune feels Floyd Landis got just what he deserved.

In Forum (subscription may be necessary) in what appears to be a trend in op-eds today, says all cheaters are sorry, only after they get caught.

The Union Leader says cheaters never prosper, unless they are sports cheaters that is. The writer cites, along with the New England Patriots cheating scandal, the Landis case decision, but should probably ask Floyd Landis how much his assumed cheating has caused him to prosper in the past year.

The CyclingNews hosts a number of interesting stories this morning, none of which are directly related to Floyd Landis. The ASO is not pleased with the UCI over the adoption of a new pro tour schedule, WADA and the UCI are for once in agreement over the proposed exclusion from the World Championships of Alejandro Valverde, and Jorg Jaksche is upset at having a one year ban for the use of EPO and so for cooperating with authorities in his doping bust he will ask it to be shortened by half.

SANEPR.Com has perhaps the most interesting headline of the day:"A Fallen Hero That Has To Learn How To Cope With Reality", and had the Landis proceedings taking place far from Malibu:

Well a French court looked at all the evidence presented by the USADA and found Landis guilty, banning him for 2 years from professional cycling and took away his Tour de France title.

Blogs
Rant writes a very long, very considered, and very elucidating piece on "the decision". To try and summarize the science discussed in it would do it a disservice, but Rant sums up what is a problem for any athlete trying to seek justice within the anti doping system:

One thing that kept sticking out in my mind while reading the majority opinion was this: Just how can an athlete rebut a charge against him/herself? Or even: Can an athlete ever rebut a charge? The evidence in the Landis case seemed strong enough to call into question the lab’s procedures, documentation and staff training, leaking of information to the media (even if not the original results, there’s no question that the results of the additional tests in April were leaked by the lab) and so on. The majority even cites such problems at points within their opinion, but rather than hold anyone’s feet to the fire, they simply slap LNDD on the wrist and say, “Next time, you might not be so lucky. Next time, we might throw out the case. So clean up your act.”


I’m left wondering if any athlete can ever get a fair hearing, and if any athlete can ever overturn an adverse analytical finding. Floyd Landis had a very strong case, but apparently not strong enough to win. It’s cost him 14 months and an unbelievable sum of money to try and defend himself. The message here from this panel seems to me to be, “If you’ve been accused, don’t bother to fight. Look what we did to Floyd Landis. We’ll do that to you, too.”

Cozy Beehive succinctly says that the Landis decision is sad.

PJ posts a look back now that the Landis decision has been made. He says some very nice things about TBV which are greatly appreciated, and also notes that Rant did a great deal of excellent writing during the past year or so. What will we all do now?

When Life Gives you Hitler, Make Hitlerade writes the usual piffle about cheaters.

Roch Around the Clock gives us lots of "axioms" about infamous athletes in the news, and tells us not to be too hard on Floyd Landis, for dubious reasons.

Kaiserstrasse says that Owen has been riding a LOT sincde the Landis decision came out, he wants to know if training wheels are allowed in the TdF.

Deep Thoughts from a Shallow Mind read about Floyd Landis and wrote a post about Lance Armstrong and wonders why when we make a mistake we can't just laugh at ourselves?

Full Post with Comments...

Saturday Roundup

News
Bicycling's Sitting In column is a great read. Bill Strickland is glad that the decision came in for Floyd, because now Floyd is free. Free of all of the humiliation, free of lawyers, well free unless he decides to appeal, and free to feel the joy of just riding a bike again. Bill is not sure if Floyd is innocent or guilty but he feels Floyd was and is a special kind of rider:

There’s an old photo up on the wall of South Mountain Cycles, the local bike shop here in Emmaus. A 19-year-old kid in a ridiculous, bulbous blue helmet, a blue-and-yellow GT jersey and full ballet tights is catching air during some autumn race at what was then called Doe Mountain, less than ten miles from where I’m sitting right now as I look up at the photo. You were beautiful back then, Floyd, innocent yet full of abandon, goofy but intense, and kind of gangly but able to rip the legs off just about anyone on any ride.
You were not just one of those cyclists who loved the sport; you were one of those cyclists who made the rest of us love the sport more.

The San Diego Union Tribune's Mark Zeigler writes that Floyd Landis may not make an appeal to the CAS over the arbitration decision that went against him.

The LA Times Michael Hiltzik spoke with Floyd Landis yesterday who lashed out at the arbitration process that condemned and convicted him. The fight Landis put up was the most sustained and public of any athlete fighting similar charges, but as Landis said his chances of a victory were zero:

"Right now I have a very dim view of humanity," Landis said, "even though I know in my heart that most people are trying to do the right thing. I just have to get away from all this for a while."

Even though Landis says he still owes hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawyers and expert witnesses, he left the door slightly open when it came to whether or not he would file an appeal:

I suppose it's doable if I want to spend a year of my life away from my family," he said. "I have to decide whether it's really going to make my life any better."
One reason to go through the exercise, he said, is to preserve the option of trying to get a U.S. court to review the case, on the assumption that a federal court would insist that he exhaust all his arbitration options before taking a look.

An AP video is included in the report.


The Edmonton Journal feels Floyd Landis is in full denial mode and writes about a female Canadian cyclist who finally admitted to the doping she had steadfastly denied.

The Toronto Star says it's time to forgive Tim Johnson his lies about Viet Nam, after all his scandal is not on par with one such as Floyd Landis'.

The CyclingNews writes that the UCI has named Oscar Pereiro the winner of the 2006 Tour de France despite a possible appeal by Floyd Landis. In other Landis decision news CN notes that the arbitrators who decided the Landis case were all critical of the LNDD . Landis' defense team put up a convincing case that the lab's practices were questionable at best. Lab director Jacques de Ceaurriz took exception to the criticism feeling that the lab was too harshly treated:

"We took a lot of flak," he told AP. "It was a little exaggerated. Things could have been handled better, without attacking the laboratory.

They took a lot of flak? They don't know what flak is.

The VeloNews' Patrick O'Grady took the lazy way out and let a picture take his cheap shot at Floyd Landis for him.

The New Zealand Herald says that even though the UCI declared Oscar Pereiro the 2006 Tour de France champion he will not be officially considered so until Floyd Landis decides on whether he will pursue an appeal.

Newsweek includes a Floyd Landis quote in its' "quotes in the news" section:

"I have to assess whether a system that is corrupt is worth subjecting myself to again."---Floyd Landis

Blogs
Rant writes that with Yom Kippur upon us it's a time of reflection and atonement for him, for us, and for Floyd Landis who is weighing an appeal to the decision he lost Thursday. Rant feels there's only one thing that really matters in all of this and that's what is best for Floyd, Amber, and Ryan.

Sports for Sports Fans thinks that it was one excuse after another for Floyd Landis and it's time to let the spotlight go, fess up, and move on.

Chris Lavender at MySpace says so long professional cycling.

Cycling Phun takes a poke or two at Floyd Landis with some "decision humor". I can't quite manage a laugh at this point.

Erik's Bicycle and Multisport Blog reviews the latest doping news including the judgement aginst Floyd Landis.

Podium Cafe makes the point that no one or nothing can bring the ASO and the UCI together more quickly than the chance to dis Floyd Landis. Chris also thinks that Oscar Pereiro may be the worst winner ever of the Tour de France, obviously he will not be heading up Oscar's fan club.

Bicycle Frenzy features a guest columnist who wonders IF you can believe in Floyd Landis and "the system" at the same time. At this juncture in time probably not.

Thoughts from Apex mulls over the NPR report from Friday on the Landis decision, and then does some reasoning of his own. He thinks that yes there may have been exogenous testosterone found in the Landis sample tested by the LNDD, but how it got there is the real question. As far as he is concerned Floyd did not dope.

Run, Run, Run, Run, Run, Cycle, Cycle Too is torn over the Landis decision and is himself a stickler for paperwork being in order. Still, he is not entirely sure what to think, but is nonethelss considering making a donation to the FFF.

Full Post with Comments...

Hoisted

Today is Hoist a Glass for Floyd day. Inspired by Whareagle, anybody who wants can send us a picture and we'll put it here.

TBV was prepared with beer, chips, cell phone and chromatograms

Whareagle's slide show.

Julie re-enacts her ride hoist.

PEM provides a before and after, more on his page. He gets credit for the idea of HOFFD.

Kate had some MonaVie Active Juice, which isn't wine despite the packaging, and claims not to contain anything on the WADA prohibited list. (picture: quixtar, who thinks it ought to cure cancer at $45/bottle)

We note RGlover's bottle looks pretty well consumed.

PJ celebrated with Miss Stella Artois.


Rant, proudly wearing his Floyd Landis Foundation jersey,
toasts Floyd Landis with a Kilimanjaro triple XL shot of The Balvenie
15 year old single malt Scotch -- or was it Jack Daniels?

Full Post with Comments...

Friday Late Roundup

If you missed some news from earlier today see the Friday Early Roundup

News
The Philadelphia Inquirer talks with Arlene Landis about the arbitration decision announced yesterday which essentially bans her son from competition until January of 2009 and strips him of his Tour de France title. Mrs. Landis believes in her son and finds that most of the residents of Ephrata, the nearest large town to Farmersville Floyd's hometown, believe him too. Still, she would not encourage him to appeal the loss and some locals agree with her.

Forbes.com speaks with Landis lawyer Maurice Suh who describes Landis as discouraged and still weighing his options. Suh lashed out at the arbitration panel who decided against Landis by a 2-1 margin:

"Here you have the perfect test case," Suh said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "It's a case in which you had the athlete who attracted a lot of attention, who had the financial and personal wherewithal to go through the process of vigorously defending himself. He has great evidence. He hires lots of lawyers. Most of all, he was innocent. And he still can't get through this. It sends the message to every other athlete out there, 'Just don't try.'"
Suh said the case "has taken all kinds of toll on (Landis) emotionally and otherwise.
The attorney ripped the panel for its decision, saying the majority's repeated admonishments of the French lab that analyzed Landis' urine mattered little if they didn't result in a victory for his client
"These people are not legislators," Suh said. "They're not here to set policy about what should happen as a matter of course over time. They're there to listen to the case set before them."

Eyewitness Sports 3 posts a summary of yesterday's Landis decision plus it has video of an interview with Paul and Arlene Landis. Be patient it takes a while to load.

SI.Com provides an interview with frustrated Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme. He states that the system needs to process cases like the Landis case with more speed.

The Vail Daily posts an op-ed piece in which it sadly concludes that sometimes it seems cheating is the only way to win these days.

Bicycling's La Scene gives an overview of reaction from the cycling world abroad.

VeloNews posts its' own compendium of reaction to the Landis decision from Spain, and notes that most of it is muted, except that of Eusebio Unzue Oscar Pereiro's team director:

"A cheater has taken away his victory. For the past year, Oscar has been a rider who's been ‘out.' He's been distracted, not concentrated on the business of racing his bike and instead of celebrating his second place, he's been trying to live with this pressure of waiting for the process to be completed," Unzue said. "What he deserves is a gesture from the race organizers or an official presentation of the jersey. That would help him make up for missing the moment to enjoy the victory."

The San Diego Union Tribune was turned down by Floyd Landis for an interview, but still manages to tell the story of yesterday's decision.


King5.com posts an AP piece summarizing the decision that went against Floyd Landis.

USAToday Sports Scope notes the "hoist one to Floyd"set for 5:10 today your local time and also gives us Christopher Campbell's "money quote", thanks for the plug BTW:

"The T-E ratio test (which the arbitrators conceded was faulty) is acknowledged as a simple test to run. The IRMS test (the one they're using to convict Landis) is universally acknowledged as a very complicated test to run, requiring much skill. If the LNDD (French lab) couldn't get the T-E ratio test right, how can a person have any confidence that LNDD got the much more complicated IRMS test correct?

The USAToday reports that Oscar Pereiro has been declared the winner of the 2006 Tour de France by the UCI, but:

"Following the decision of the competent American authority to sanction the American cyclist Floyd Landis for doping, and in accordance with the International Cycling Unions regulation, the Spanish rider Oscar Pereiro is declared winner of the 2006 Tour de France," the statement said.

"The UCI has informed both the rider and the organizer of the event."

But Tour de France organizers say Pereiro will not get his crown quite yet — until it becomes clear whether Landis will appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. He has a month to do so.

The IHT/Sam Abt asks what if they gave a bike race and nobody came? It's postulated that things will now only get worse for cycling and cycling events with yesterday's Landis decision.



Blogs
The Environmental Chemistry Editor's Blog leads with part of the dissent of Landis arbitrator Christopher Campbell and is very disturbed by some of the findings of the panel with respect to the science produced by the LNDD:

In simple terms, yes there are problems at LNDD, yes the practices of the LNDD "lack the vigor the Panel would expect in the circumstances" and "other matters introduced in evidence" "do give some causes for concern," however we are going to ignore this and convict anyways. Good lord I hope these arbiters are never on the jury if I'm on trial.

PEM posts pictures of his toast to Floyd. Thanks PEM, great pics, and great suggestion!

re:Cycling feels very much that it never made sense that Floyd Landis would dope during the Tour de France, but there is the arbitration decision now. Still, Dan thinks that he will always see Floyd riding the magical stage 17, crossing the line at 17:10. He will raise a glass to Floyd this afternoon at 5:10 his time. Thanks for the plug.


Dugard wonders if Floyd Landis cheated and feels only Floyd knows for sure. Still he mourns for Floyd and is angry with those out there who are gloating over yesterday's decision.

After School Snack gives us a taste of some of the pieces written in the past 24 hours.

Eagle Par Birdie notes with irony that on the day that Floyd Landis was found guilty of doping by an arbitration panel, golf is finally developing a drug policy of its' own.

Reason Hit and Run says give back the yellow jersey Floyd, real winners don't do drugs.

Beside Still Waters writes a moving tribute to poet Rich Mullins, and also notes the Floyd Landis decision which she feels is just plain wrong. Floyd won the 2006 Tour de France fair and square, period. Thanks for reading us.

An Athlete's Rise and Fall in the World wants Floyd Landis to just accept his ban and and get on with it.

Full Post with Comments...

FFF Statement on Decision

Received at 10:01 PT, sent to the FFF mailing list.

Dear Floyd Fairness Fund Supporter,

You will have no doubt heard by now of the arbitration panel’s split decision against Floyd. For those of us who hoped the panel would take the opportunity to judge the case on the facts and science, this is bitterly disappointing, particularly given the clear evidence of incompetence and unprofessional practice extending from the LNDD across the WADA/USADA anti-doping bureaucracy. While Floyd considers his options, we can at least reflect on the success we have had at highlighting the dramatic need for reform in this tortuously unfair system. I would encourage all of you to read the panel’s decision and contrast the clarity and logic of Mr. Campbell’s dissent in Floyd’s favor against the scientifically flawed and illogical conclusion of the two Canadian attorneys. I have no doubt that as objective scientific and analytical minds review the ruling, its flaws will become abundantly clear.

We want to thank you for your support to date and pass along Floyd’s thanks as well. As for the Floyd Fairness Fund, we are trying to pay off outstanding receivables incurred by spending decisions made by Floyd’s attorney during the hearings. So any contribution you can make now to help us to do this would be greatly appreciated. When Floyd decides his next steps I know many of us are committed to continue to support him as best we can.

Whatever the next steps in Floyd’s battle for justice, the fight for a fair and effective anti-doping system must continue. If any good comes out of the injustice done to Floyd and his family, it may be that athletes in the coming years are not subject to this corrupt and cynical process that is doing little to mitigate doping in sport while WADA/USADA wastes our taxpayers’ dollars to mock American principles of justice and individual rights. Fortunately, there are persons like yourselves who are committed to “justice for all,” including for professional cyclists who are denied this basic right in the current anti doping system.

Thanks again for your support, and I know you all join me in thanking Floyd for taking a stand for justice and fairness for cyclists and all athletes subject to the WADA/USADA bureaucracy.

Sincerely,

Brian J. Rafferty

Floyd Fairness Fund
205 Lexington Avenue
New York 10016 USA

www.floydfairnessfund.org

Full Post with Comments...

Friday Early Roundup

The Landis watch is well and over with for now. Until things quiet down a bit we'll be posting "early" and a"late" roundups. We at TBV think that today would be a great day to "hoist one for Floyd".

News
The LA Times Michael Hiltzik writes an extensive look at the ruling yesterday that now finds Floyd Landis suspended until January of 2009 and without his Tour de France title. The article looks in depth at several issues found within the ruling, not the least of which is the competency of the LNDD, the lab which tested Landis' samples during the 2006 Tour de France. Even though the majority did find some problems with the lab and lab procedures, it was arbitrator panel member Christopher Campbell who took the lab to task in his 26 page dissent:

"WADA should be writing rules that mandate the highest scientific standards rather than rules for a race to the bottom of scientific reliability so convictions can be easily obtained," he wrote.

The issue is critical because the core of Landis' defense was an attack on the integrity and performance of the Laboratoire National de Depistage du Dopage, or LNDD, the French government anti-doping lab that ruled Landis' urine sample from Stage 17 of the 2006 race positive for testosterone use.

LancasterOnline, Floyd Landis' hometown newspaper, spoke with several of Floyd Landis' friends and supporters today about yesterday's 2-1 decision which found Landis guilty of doping to win the 2006 Tour de France. They seem in general agreement that Landis should not seek an appeal of the arbitration decision because justice would be as hard to come by in the appeals process as it was in the arb hearings. Landis' mother Arlene is quoted as saying:

"If it was me, I would say I proved my point and life isn't fair to everybody. I'm not a fighter. I wouldn't do that," she said this morning, adding, however, "I'm not him. If he knows he's innocent, I don't know why he wouldn't."

ESPN contributor Bonnie D. Ford writes that the Landis decision had something that everyone could find comfort in, or feel smug about:

You can select what you agree with from the documents and be smug about how right you were, or you can look at the sum of their contradictory parts and shake your head. Like the far more weighty belated resolution of a certain presidential election a few years ago, the belated resolution of the 2006 Tour de France left us with a few hanging chads.

ESPN also posts the responses to the Landis decision of the Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme, who was very pleased with the confirmation of what he knew all along, and Jacques de Ceaurruiz the LNDD director who felt that the decision was unfair, to the LNDD:

"We took a lot of flak," lab director Jacques de Ceaurriz said. "It was a little exaggerated. Things could have been handled better, without attacking the laboratory."

ESPN's Page 2 AM Jump can take real pride in posting the nastiest comments we have seen thus far from mainstream media.

NPR's Morning Edition featured a story on the Landis verdict, with audio available after 9AM EDT.

The Denver Post writes what is today's typical story of confusion with the 84 page Landis decision, and an outline of some Landis case events.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer posts a Philp Hersh piece on the Landis decision which mentions that Landis has a deadline of 30 in which to appeal the 2-1 arbitration verdict to the CAS.

Bicycling covers the Landis story by carrying the AFP version, and reprints the Landis side response in its' entirety.

The CyclingNews speaks with UCI director Pat McQuaid about the Landis decision. He is pleased with the verdict and feels it proves the system works even in light of the fact that the decision criticized certain elements of the process:

McQuaid admits that some modifications should be made, but feels that the system still uncovered the truth. "There are possibly things that need to be changed," he stated. "You cam always get an element of human error where there are humans involved, but the fact is that they had enough evidence there to prove that he was positive. That is the most important thing."

Can anyone say "reasonable doubt?"

The CyclingNews mailbag is open as well with letters that seem to have lost some of their relevance in light of yesterday's Landis decision.

The Philadelphia Inquirer spoke to Floyd Landis about two weeks ago and thought at that time he sounded resigned to receiving the verdict he did yesterday:

...USADA has not lost any of the 35 cases involving athletes' drug tests that have gone to arbitration. And as recently as two weeks ago, during an interview with The Inquirer, Landis sounded like a man who knew he was beaten.
"I wouldn't wish this process on anybody," he said then, his voice tinged with resignation. "I spent two million dollars, and USADA has spent several million dollars, and nobody got anywhere. It's just a tremendous waste of everybody's time and money."

Fox11 News from LA shows exclusive video of Floyd Landis reacting to the arbitration verdict which went against him yesterday by a 2-1 margin. In it he says that the arbitrators who voted for his guilt were either paid off by WADA, or were too unintelligent to understand the science in his arguments. Take a look at it.


AFP Direct publishes a more detailed report on the Landis verdict with Dick Pound remaining uncharacteristically quiet.

The NYTimes Juliet Macur writes about the results of the Landis hearings which includes a quote from Pat McQuaid which seems like a bit of overkill:

“We’re very happy with the result because the testing system was put under immense scrutiny by what you would call a celebrated group of lawyers, some of the best in America, and it stood up under that scrutiny.
Now he can keep the yellow jersey, put it on his wall and dream about it, but Oscar Pereiro is now the winner,” McQuaid said.

The San Jose Mercury News has the Landis story covered as well with this interesting bit from USADA lawyer Richard Young:

"(The flaws) are not something you like to have to deal with," USADA attorney Rich Young said. "You wish everything was clean. But I don't think it affected the (test) result at all."

How could the "flaws" in the system possibly affect the results? Where to start.

The StarOnline.com posts an updated AP story on yesterday's Landis verdict .

The Guardian Unlimited features the Caisse D'Epargne team boss bitterly complaining that the delay in the Landis case has cost his team countless dollars and glory. Other have suffered much more at the hands of this delay in justice .

Blogs
Rant reflects on yesterday's Landis verdict and thinks that though this case exemplifies the closest thing an athlete can hope to have to a fair hearing, it still shows the enormous flaws within the anti doping system.

GMR posts an open letter to Flkoyd Landis expressing support. The letter is also posted in the comment section here at TBV.

Bike Biz describes the Landis split decision as "messy".

MVP Mouth yawns at the Landis verdict and wonders where Lance is.

Triple Crankset is baffled by the Landis decision, he's not alone in that. We appreciate the kind words.

The Bicycle News posts a short blurb on "the decision" and includes a couple of links.

The Baltimore Sun's "O by the Way" blog finds the Landis case to be the saddest of scandals, and very perplexing. The Sun's Bill Ordine has met Paul and Arlene Landis and is thinking of them today as well. As are we all.

Team Spindrift had a doubly bad day yesterday with the Landis decision and a crappy 30 mile bike ride.

Surfacehippy says "bummer" Perfect!

Concrete Brunette thinks the whole thing is a bummer too, for Floyd and for us.

Isn't Her? Her Is! says the Floyd Landis story makes her go GGGRRRR.

Don't be the Mustard wonders, in light of the Landis verdict, exactly what constitutes a PED?

Ahmet Toker is certain now that Floyd Landis doped, and he feels cheated.

Forums
The Daily Peloton Forums are buzzing with Landis activity today as would be expected. Here are three active discussions taking place: Everyone Lost in this Case, Arbitration Panel Rules Landis Guilty, and Pereiro Named Winner of Tour.

Full Post with Comments...

Morning coffee and l'Equipe

Here's this morning's coverage from l'Equipe:

Landis gets two years
The American is suspended until Jan. 29, 2009 for his positive test in the 2006 Tour. He could appeal.
by José Barroso

He was dreaming of making his fight one of those success stories that Americans flock to. He failed. Yesterday, Floyd Landis, now thirty-one years old, was suspended for two years by the USADA for his positive testosterone test during the 2006 Tour de France. This is marks the end of an interminable case fourteen months long. Or, rather, the end of the first episode, since it was not known yesterday evening whether the former Phonak rider would appeal to the Sports Arbitration Tribunal (CAS).

Several days after his victory parade on the Champs-Élysées at the end of July 2006. his team revealed a positive test result after the 17th stage (Saint-Jean-de Maurienne-Morzine), in which he rocked the race at the end of a heroic breakaway. Shaken at first, the American soon contested the facts. After a long confused defense (thyroid irregularity, alcohol, naturally elevated testosterone level), he settled his argument on one fixed idea: to demonstrate the incompetence of the laboratory at Châtenay-Malabry, advancing several procedural errors observed during their tests.

Given the complexity of the case, the USADA assigned it to an arbitration commission (AAA)--a panel of three independent judges. A public hearing was held last May at a university in California, in which, during ten days of frightfully technical arguments, Landis and the USADA engaged in a battle of experts to convince the three judges. Ever since, the decision of the judges has been impatiently awaited, but the judges solicited the advice of experts before rendering their judgment--the most recent being Francesco Botre, director of the antidoping laboratory in Rome.

In the end, the arbitration commission went with the evidence of the facts, 2 to 1. In its 84-page decision that was published yesterday, the AAA indicated that at first the initial positive test was not conducted in conformity with the rules of the world antidoping agency--in fact, a technician took part in both the A and B tests, and some recording error were made with the samples. "The laboratory has not shown the rigor expected in these circumstances given the serious consequences they can have for the athletes", the AAA revealed, while making clear that the errors of the laboratory at Châtenay-Malabry were not of a nature to invalidate the positive test result.

In reality, it was the complementary analyses conducted last spring on Landis samples that turned the tables. These analyses (using the IRMS method), which brought to light the presence of exogenous testosterone in several of the samples, allowed the panel to reach the conclusion that a violation of the antidoping rules was established. And in consequence to suspend Landis for two years. The AAA explains: "Floyd Landis declared Jan. 30, 2007 that he would not participate in international competitions. The panel therefore decided that his suspension would begin on that date, and end Jan. 29, 2009."

"This decision is a blow against athletes and riders the world over," Landis reacted immediately. He has spent two million dollars in recent months traveling the United States and explaining his theory of the conspiracy. Sticking faithfully to his refrain, he added: "That the panel found in favor of the USADA despite their not succeeding in proving the least of their arguments shows that the system is fundamentally defective. I am innocent, and we proved that I was innocent." One of his attorneys, Maurice Suh, spoke of "a judicial error." For his part, Travis Tygard, counsel general of the USADA rejoiced: "Today's judgment is a victory for all clean athletes and for anyone who wants fair and honest competition." Pat McQuaid, president of the UCI also appreciated the verdict: "This proves the system works. Justice has been done, which is what the UCI was always asking for. In the end, the facts carried the day." He announced immediately: "According to our rules, and barring an appeal by Landis, Oscar Pereiro (second to Landis) will be declared the winner of the 2006 Tour de France."

Plus this sidebar:

While the Word Antidoping Agency yesterday evening refused to make any comments given the appeals that could appear before the sports arbitration tribunal, Patrice Clerc, president of Amaury Sport Organization, Tour de France organizers, considered the decision of the independent American arbitration court: "Non-news, Landis tested positive long ago. This is merely rhe administrative regularizing of something we already knew." Christian Prudhomme, Tour director, for his part regretted the slowness of the procedure in a declaration to Agence France Presse: "Landis did everything to defend himself for which I cannot blame him. But, evidently, it is much too slow." And finally, Spaniard Oscar Pereiro, second in the 2006 Tour, and thus declared winner by the UCI, yesterday gave his assurance that "No one wants to win a race in this manner. but after a year and a half, all of that, I am just happy it is over."

Full Post with Comments...

Cream of the Crop, round 1

There are a zillion articles and posts, and while we're getting most of them in the Roundups, we thought it'd be useful to point you to the ones we think are the most informed and informative.

Eddie Pells AP story, reproduced the world over. Eddie appears to have gotten the decision from USADA almost as soon as USADA got it, and broke the news to the world.

ESPN has expanded the story with significant new reporting by Bonnie D Ford.

ESPN/Ford offers her own personal and ambivalent view at the end of the day.

LA Times/Hiltzik has a concise short piece.

NYT/Macur writes a new article with quotes from a number of people not heard elsewhere, all taking unsurprising positions.

CyclingNews has a complete original report.

VeloNews has its own original story.

MSNBC/AP/Litke is having trouble believing either side.

NBC Sports/Abrahamson says he was found guilty because he is guilty, don't bother appealing, and don't let the door hit you on your way out. He also misrepresents the Landis defense.

Finger Food passes on the judgment of another writer, Bob Ford: "Cooked case."

Environmental Chemistry says it is a very dark day for science, fairness, and due process, and invites qualified scientists to explore the ruling at his site.

Howling Point says "Broken evidence, but guilty anyway."

Velogal thinks it's a screw job, and an appeal is pointless because the system is fixed.

Spare Cycles says, "Landis loses, questionable precedent".

Racejunkie goes ballistic,

East Coast Bias doesn't trust the anti-doping agencies, and thinks we'll never know about Floyd.

The Oz Report asks if an injustice has been done, citing our Judge Hue and Environmental Chemistry.

Triple Crankset asks, "did you really expect otherwise?"

And for the last word, TBV's Bill Hue started his dissection, and TBV pointed at the heart of the decision and found it a good candidate for further scrutiny.

Full Post with Comments...

Hoist a Glass for Floyd, Friday 5:10pm

You know it's time

This looks like a good moment to hold the "Hoist a Glass" that was suggested a little while back.

Tomorrow, at 5:10pm Local Time, we suggest you find a quantity of the libation of your choice, and offer a "cheers" to Landis for his win that at Morzine that finished at that moment.

We are advised two beverages of choice are Jack Daniels and Pabst Blue Ribbon, though you are welcome to substitute your own favorites.

When you need to drink a lot, Pabst gets the call.

Full Post with Comments...

Hard to digestif from Paris

Slim pickings from Europe. French, Belgian, Italian online newspapers and agencies are mainly repeating the AP story--the bare-bones, not as much by way of comment as appears, for example, in the ESPN report. (Time of day probably accounts for it. The story broke here at about 8:30 p.m. As I file this it's 10:45 p.m. There'll no doubt be more overnight.)

One quote not appearing in the American reports I've seen is this quote from Christian Prudhomme, reported in l'Equipe (from Agence France Presse):

Christian Prudhomme, Tour director, expressed his relief regarding this decision, even if it came, for him, too slowly. "We have waited a long time, too long. For our part, we said from the beginning we had total confidence in the French lab at Châtenay-Malabry [ed note: which conducted the analyses]. Now it is sworn and confirmed that Landis cheated. As far as the Tour de France is concerned, Landis was no longer the winner after the B test. The verdict of the American arbitrators just confirms what we knew. He cheated; he is punished. Following our rules, the second place finisher (Oscar Pereiro) will be awarded first place," Prudhomme confided.

Full Post with Comments...

On Key Issue, Landis Experts called flat wrong

The key issue is whether the CIR peaks are what they are claimed to be. Landis' side had argued the peaks were not properly identified to TD2003IDCR by either absolute or relative retention times. The Panel accepted Brenna's argument that it's possible to do the identity by eyeballing the peaks, and Davis and Meier-Augenstein got it all wrong.

186. Dr. Brenna’s testimony specified that it could still be possible that the retention times might be proportional to one another (and within TD2003IDCR), but it won’t always work out in that way. Instead, the lab compares the peaks and the sequence of the peaks from the GC/MS and GC/C/IRMS to identify the metabolites and the endogenous reference compounds. Specifically, to identify the substances in question, one would compare the pattern of peak heights and retention times in the GC/C/IRMS chromatograms, anchored by the internal standard with a known RT, with the pattern of peaks heights and RTs in the GC/MS chromatograms obtained from the same aliquot of the sample.

[...]

188. The point must be conceded because the chromatographic conditions are different. The GC column is, of course, the same in both instruments. However, the thermal ramp {that is the variation of the temperature of the compartment containing the GC column as function of time} is different. That is evident from the fact that the total time for analysis is 25 minutes for GC/MS and 45 minutes for GC/C/IRMS. This difference in the experimental conditions would itself be enough to consider totally worthless a comparison of the retention times (or relative retention times) between GC/MS and GC/C/IRMS. Thus, the proposition of the Athlete as put by his scientific experts was unsound and without any reasonable scientific basis.

189. The Panel concludes that the Respondent’s interpretation of TD2003IDCR is a complete misapplication of the document. The conclusions of the Respondent, based upon the evidence given by both Dr. Meier-Augenstein and Dr. Davis are scientifically totally unacceptable and fundamentally flawed. The Technical Document does not contemplate the comparison of retention times or relative retention time between two separate instruments. Therefore, the Respondent has failed to rebut the presumption that the LNDD departed from the ISL as outlined in WADA TD2003IDCR. This branch of the Respondent’s case and argument is dismissed as a matter of the expert testimony and as a matter of the proper legal interpretation of the Technical Document.

(emphasis added)

This will be the major arguing point in any appeal, as it is the point of decision for the whole case. As far we're concerned, the rest of the award is a noisy distraction.

There seem to be two possibilities.

One, the Landis theory really is that wrong, in which case Davis and Meier-Augenstein are charlatans.

Two, the Landis theory is sound and was inadequately presented, allowing the panel to be snowed by Brenna and Botre's refutations, which if incorrect, are damnable lies of their own.

The truth of this can probably be determined by hearing what Davis and Herr Doktor Professor have to say now that they are ungagged, and they have the opportunity to explain what they think was going on.

Since we're not sure we ever understand the issue, or exactly how it is supposed to work, we're inclined to listen to what Davis and Meier-Augenstein say in response now that they are free to speak. Being charitable, that we didn't understand it completely may be why the panel didn't understand it. Being parsimonious, they may have chosen not to understand it, and deferred to the "independant" expert, WADA lab director Botre.

If it's found that Brenna and Botre are the ones who misled the panel, there ought to be an uproar.

Full Post with Comments...

Decision Documents

We have put the documents up on the archive, and have not yet read them. They are not yet up on the USOC pressbox site, nor through a USADA press release.

First, the "Highlights of Award", basically a press release.

Second, the Majority award, now also at USADA.

Third, the Dissent award, now also at USADA.

Lastly (for now), the USADA press release.

"I want to thank all of the dedicated USADA Board members and employees, the many experts who assisted in this case and our outside counsel, Rich Young, Matt Barnett, Dan Dunn and Jennifer Sloan of Holme Roberts & Owen LLP for their tireless commitment in pursuing the truth. Everyone on USADA’s team operates on one fundamental principle: do what is right,” continued Tygart. “Here, despite the intense pressure applied by Mr. Landis and his high-priced legal and public relations team, we knew that doing what was right required staying the course and fulfilling our duty to clean athletes. USADA brought the case against Mr. Landis because, as the independent panel confirmed today, the scientific evidence established that he had committed a doping violation.

(emphasis added)

Full Post with Comments...

Hue's View

INITIAL REACTION

Eddy Pells got it first and it didn't seem to get to him from the Landis side. The decision was released through the AAA well after Pell's article. Landis' team received the documents at 10:16 Pacific time. The "gag" order no longer applies.

You need no longer wonder what Dr Botre's opinion about the IRMS testing protocol. The majority, with Botre's help, concludes that the IRMS procedures were performed within International Laboratory Standards.

[MORE]


I have said it before, in a "real" court, in Europe or in North America, the flaws identitfied by all 3 Panel members would cause the case to be dismissed before the fact finder would apply the standard of proof. Sad day for justice. Great day (and vindiction) for WADA, the Federations and USADA.


Landis is banned until January 29, 2009. This is the 2 year anniversary of the date in which Landis "voluntarily" pledged not to compete in International events and that was determined to be the first day of his 2 year suspension period. USADA had argued for 2 years from today's date (the date the decision was rendered).

The Panel ordered USOC to pay its fees and Dr Botre's.

The decision is very technical and makes decisions on the science. The majority did not find the testimony of Joe Papp "helpful in determining the issues before it..." and held Papp's testimony "...in no regard ..."

Panel finds Landis's testimony on his conversation with Lemond did not constitute an admission of guilt. Calls Lemond's testimony "inchoate" when he refused to answer questions the Panel determined to be proper. Panel accepts the statement and explaination of Mr Landis and rejects the testimony of Lemond to the extent he claimed Landis confessed to him.

Campbell says Landis not only proved his case by a preponderance of the evidence but in many ways, "beyond a reasonable doubt". Says LNDD has not "been trustworthy from the beginning". Finds LNDD violated International standards, fails legal and ethical standards and should not be "entrusted with Landis' career."


"62. Because everyone assumes an athlete who is alleged to have tested positive is guilty, it is not fashionable to argue that laboratories should comply with strict rules. However, if you are going to hold athletes strictly liable with virtually no possibility of overcoming a rcported alleged positive test even in the face of substantial and numerous laboratory errors, fairness and human decency dictates that strict rules be applied to laboratories as well. To do otherwise d doesn't safeguard the interest of athlctes."


63. WADA should be writing rules that mandate the highest scientific stantiards rather than writing rule for a race to the bottom of scientific reliability so convictions can be easily obtained, as this cased demonstrates. Givcn the plethora of laboratory errors in this case, there was certainly no reliable scientific evidence introduccd to find that Mr. Landis committcd a doping offense."

From paragraph 52:
"When you consider all the errors and ISL violations in this case, the fact that the results also do not comport with known science is dispositive. I cannot be comfortable satisfied that LNDD’s results are correct."

From footnote 13:


13. I was very concerned with my evaluation of the errors associated with Mr. Landis’ tests. To confirm that there was a problem with cherry picked of data I asked the Panel’s expert, Dr. Botrè to review my concerns. His response was that he could not figure out where the data came from. While this is certainly not evidence in the case, Dr. Botrè’s response is in accord with what both parties agreed, that the Panel could have an expert to explain complicated scientific information. His response confirmed my suspicion of the problem.

So, that is how Botre came to help the Panel, by agreement of the parties, since the parties would not or could not (according the majority decision), agree on an expert in that regard.

Campbell comments on "two metabolite" issue:

58. Mr. Landis had diligently requested the positivity criteria for the LNDD laboratory for reporting a positive test under an IRMS analysis. He wanted to know whether you needed to identify one, two or three metabolites' delta delta values as positive. The only response from LNDD was that they followed the WADA Criteria. The WADA Criteria is so vague that a laboratory could
have done any of the above. This is likely why there is no uniformity in the various WADA laboratory's positivity criteria for IRMS tests. I really wonder whether the LNDD would have reported Mr. Landis’ sample positive had they properly calculated the measurement of uncertainty in the beginning and found that only one metabolite had a delta delta value above the 3 per mil threshold.

Campbell finds "Chain of Custody" so difficient as to negate the sample's themselves:


E. LNDD Did Not Have A Proper Chain of Custody for the Samples of Mr. Landis


21. Having an impeccable chain of custody is necessary to “ensure that the urine tested suffered no contamination, tampering, or mislabeling.”29 “On request the laboratory must be able to give exact documentation on details such as where a certain sample was located at a given time and the identity of the person handling the sample at the time in question.”30 The ISL 3.2 defines Laboratory Internal Chain of Custody as follows:
Documentation of the sequence of Persons in possession of the Sample and any
portions of the Sample taken for Testing. [Comment: Laboratory Internal Chain of Custody is generally documented by a written record of the date, location, action taken, and the individual performing an action with a Sample or Aliquot.]31


22. There were numerous examples of problems with the chain of custody in Mr. Landis’ case.32


One example clearly stands out.33 The Exhibit, USADA 0235, contains a portion of what purports to be the LNDD’s internal chain of custody for Mr. Landis’ sample.34 On July 22, 2006 the document shows that Ms. Mongongu had possession of the sample for IRMS aliquot testing.35 She testified that at 11:25 she gave the sample to Esther Cerpolini.36 She further testified that Ms.
Cerpolini performed a density test and pH test on the sample and placed it back in storage.37

23. The laboratory internal chain of custody has no record of a density or pH test being done on the sample. Further, the document does not show Ms. Cerpolini having possession of the sample until more than an hour after the time testified to by Ms. Mongongu.

24. This example best illustrates that the documents used to show the chain of custody for Mr. Landis’ sample have no relationship to what actually happened to the samples in this Laboratory. Further, there are also other significant gaps regarding the sample in the laboratory’s internal chain of custody that are too numerous to mention. The chain of custody was severely deficient compared
to examples of the UCLA Laboratories’ chain of custody documentation.

25. When you have flaws that are as obvious as the flaws in LNDD’s document package in this case and you combine that with the fact that actions were taken on Mr. Landis’ sample that are not recorded, then I do not see how you can state with confidence what happened to those samples at any particular time. Flaws of this magnitude in the internal chain of custody render’s any results
from tests done on those samples unreliable.


29Catlin, Cowan, Donike et al., “Testing Urine for Drugs, International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (1992), Exhibit GDC0219-0232.

30Id.

31The World Anti-Doping Code, International Standards For Laboratory, Version 4.0 (August 2004), ¶3.2.

32Landis’ Proposed Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, supra, at pages 47-50.


32Landis’ Proposed Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, supra, at pages 47-50.

33Transcript of Proceeding, supra, at pages 661-662:2.(testimony of Cynthia Mongongu).

34Id.

35Id.

36Id. at p. 539:1-14.(testimony of Cynthia Mongongu).

37Id.

Full Post with Comments...

Decision Roundup

Floyd Landis' statement concerning his loss in the USDA hearings announced today:

"This ruling is a blow to athletes and cyclists everywhere" "For the Panel to find in favor of USADA when, with respect to so many issues, USADA did not manage to prove even the most basic parts of their case shows that this system is fundamentally flawed. I am innocent, and we proved I am innocent."

News
The LA Times Michael Hiltzik writes about today's arbitration decision which came down 2-1 against Floyd Landis. The ruling may spur controversy due to its' apparent inconsistencies:

The ruling, which follows a nine-day evidentiary hearing held in May, is likely to spur considerable controversy over the legal standards employed by the international anti-doping program, which is overseen by the World Anti-Doping Agency. The panel, for example, ruled that the initial testosterone screen of Landis' urine sample was done improperly by WADA's Paris laboratory and threw those results out. But it upheld the later confirmation test performed by the same lab, even though the confirmation would not have been performed if the initial screen had been ruled clean.

Maurice Suh, one of the lawyers employed by Landis, stated that at this time they are weighing their legal options:

Landis' attorney, Maurice Suh, said after the ruling that the cyclist and his defense team were "weighing all our options," possibly including seeking a review of the case in a federal court or pursuing an appeal to the International Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The AFP also notes today's Landis vs USADA decision which went against the cyclist by a 2-1 margin. According to a Maurice Suh spokesperson, Landis will not be available for comment until at least Monday. Until then the Landis camp will be digesting the decision.

ESPN main article is considerably expanded with exclusive coverage and quotes from an angry Landis; go read it. In early versions, Pat McQuaid is quoted:

"Well, all I can say is that justice has been done, and that this is what the UCI felt was correct all along," Pat McQuaid, leader of cycling's world governing body, told The Associated Press by telephone. "We now await and see if he does appeal to CAS.
"It's not a great surprise considering how events have evolved. He got a highly qualified legal team who tried to baffle everybody with science and public relations. And in the end the facts stood up."

Even though the panel found that the lab did not meet what it called the standards that it would have preferred, they found that the evidence was too strong to deny. Christopher Campbell disagreed however by saying:

The majority repeatedly wrote that any mistakes made at the lab were not enough to dismiss the positive test, but also sent a warning.
"If such practises continue, it may well be that in the future, an error like this could result in the dismissal" of a positive finding by the lab.

In Campbell's opinion, Landis' case should have been one of those cases.
"In many instances, Mr. Landis sustained his burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt," Campbell wrote. "The documents supplied by LNDD are so filled with errors that they do not support an Adverse Analytical Finding. Mr. Landis should be found innocent."

Floyd Landis is quoted as well:

Speaking from his home in Murietta, Calif., outside San Diego, an angry Landis sounded as if he were leaning against an appeal and seemed fatalistic about the odds he will ever race professionally again.

"I have to assess whether a system that corrupt is worth subjecting myself to again," Landis told ESPN.com's Bonnie D. Ford. "I don't have any reason to believe that CAS is any more sincere.

"Money is a large part of it. I have to consider my family when I consider risking everything I have left. It might be like putting all my money in a slot machine."


Landis called the ruling "completely absurd" and said he drew no consolation from the fact that the panel found some of the French lab's procedures wanting. Although he said he was surprised and disappointed by the decision, he added that it confirmed his suspicion that the outcome may have been a foregone conclusion.

"The only way this could have come out any differently is if one of the arbitrators was drunk and checked the wrong box," he said. "There's something going on here other than trying to figure out the science."

Landis said that having his Tour title summarily stripped stung badly despite all the time he has had to prepare mentally for that possibility.

"Of course it hurts," he said. "I worked for 15 years to do that. I earned it. To have it taken away in this manner couldn't hurt more."

The 31-year-old Landis said he feels ambivalent about racing again. "I do want to, but whether I will is a slim chance," he said

Bonnie D. Ford also provides a time line of the Landis saga, ESPN/Ford offers her own personal and ambivalent view at the end of the day.


The TimesOnLIne UK says that even though the CAS is a possible avenue of appeal for Floyd Landis, the ASO has long considered Oscar Pereiro to be the rightful 2006 Tour de France champion. Pat McQuaid of the UCI states that Pereiro will be declared the champion.

The CyclingNews also reports that Landis has lost his year long fight against doping charges. CyclingNews spoke to Pat McQuaid who had this to say:

It is true, we have been on to USADA and others about it," McQuaid said. "We can confirm that Pereiro will be the winner of the 2006 Tour de France, and that Floyd Landis will get a two year ban." There has been no official statement on the start date of the ban, but McQuaid speculated it would run from the end of the 2006 Tour.

Reuters also reports that the Landis decision has been made and quotes a Landis representative:

Kellie Power, spokeswoman for Landis's lawyers, told Reuters that they had yet to receive any notification of the verdict.

The VeloNews takes wires reports of the Landis guilty ruling and condenses them.

Bloomberg.com posts the result of the Landis arbitration hearings with comments from Pat McQuaid:

``This means we will give Pereiro the victory,'' McQuaid said. ``The system has been under pressure for the last few months because of the attacks from the Landis side. It's stood up to those attacks. We are pleased for the sport.

It is thought that despite this result WADA/USADA can hardly see this as a complete victory considering the costs it incurred from not only a financial standpoint but also in terms of its reputation.

MSNBC provides an evolutionary timeline of the Landis case. MSNBC also posts a Jim Litke piece about the "too good to be true" Landis story which is thoughtful and well worth reading.

NBC Sports/Abrahamson says he was found guilty because he is guilty, don't bother appealing, and don't let the door hit you on your way out. He also misrepresents the Landis defense.

The New York Times Juliet Macur writes that the long, public, and costly fight Floyd Landis waged was lost today when the initial doping charges brought against him were upheld by the arbitration panel which heard his case in May:

“Justice has been served,” said Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, which presented its side of the case against Landis to the arbitration panel four months ago.

Pearl Piatt, a spokeswoman for Landis lawyer Maurice Suh, said Landis would not be available for comment this week.


SI.Com notes Oscar Pereiro's relief at the announcement of the Landis decision.

North County Times/Californian, Landis' nearby paper, writes the locals still back him.

MSNBC/Celizic takes the "he was guilty all along" line, and hopes he serves as an anti-role model for da kids.

Blogs
PJ announces an end to the Landis conclave as white smoke has now been seen. He will leave to make make your own peace with the decision.

Rant notes that the arbitration board decided against Floyd Landis by a 2-1 margin. In an update Rant feels like he's been suck punched. He wonders IF the LNDD can't get the initial testing right what makes the arbitration panel think they could get the IRMS correct? He feels greatly for Floyd and his family right now ans till consider Landis the rightful winner of the 2006 Tour de France

Before bed, Rant offers the result may be the worst thing, for the long term, that could have happened.

This is not justice, whatever else you may wish to call it. It is a sham. The system we have for adjudicating anti-doping cases is a sham, plain and simple.

[...]

Had the decision gone the other way — in favor of Landis — the anti-doping system would be under pressure to fix its problems. But now, they may well feel free to operate with greater impunity. It’s a sad day, indeed.

Sara Best posts that sadly it's over, thanks Sara for the kind words and all of your support.

Potholes and Roadapples writes about the arb decision that went against Lancaster, PA native son Floyd Landis.

Outside Blog tells of the two year suspension given Floyd Landis by USADA and thinks he will appeal this to the CAS.

Morning Cup of Joe thinks that if Floyd Landis told the truth, even though the decision went against him, he still won. As a matter of fact Joe thinks Floyd won anyway as you must do what it takes in war.

Transplant Athlete says it's a sad day in Mudville, Landis has struck out.

Super Rookie says that Floyd Landis should have admitted guilt in the first place like a man, then he'd be back riding that much sooner.

The Sweet Life feels for Floyd Landis and thinks he's a much better person than Lance Armstrong.

I Ride I Writes tells Floyd Landis to hit the road, cyclist like Floyd have cost the sport lots of money.

Jet City Journal thinks the Landis scandal is the worst embarrassment cycling has faced, and it's just sad.

The FredCast podcast has the story as well.

Ron's Journal wants to just make it stop, we concur.

The Boulder Blog notes the ruling, with more analysis to come when he gets home.

Unmuted Horn says it's official, Floyd Landis is a doper. He wants Lance's head on a platter by the way, as if that has anything to do with anything.

Cyclelicious says that Landis is guilty, and that Floyd may appeal this to the CAS.

Velogal says that Floyd Landis was screwed by the system and that an appeal might be useless as the powers that be in cycling all swim in the same cesspool.

US Legal Reporter is on the story of the Landis decision as well as the loss of the Tour de France title.

Carson's Post is of the opinion that Floyd Landis should be glad there is no penalty in this case for perjury, he feels this is a victory for clean athletes.

Environmental Chemistry says it is a very dark day for science, fairness, and due process, and invites qualified scientists to explore the ruling at his site.

Howling Point says "Broken evidence, but guilty anyway."

Spare Cycles says, "Landis loses, questionable precedent".

Racejunkie goes ballistic,

East Coast Bias doesn't trust the anti-doping agencies, and thinks we'll never know about Floyd.

Triple Crankset asks, "did you really expect otherwise?"


rblogonly says "guilty as charged"

TeeOff says,

"Apparently, he poked holes through the entire US Anti-Doping Agency’s case against him…and they still found him guilty. He can appeal.

In a sport no one cares about - sorry Lance - why do they ride their stars so hard."

Alex Valentine starts:

Floyd Landis was given a two year suspension, and will probably never cycle professionally again. While Floyd probably doped, his case against the doping regulatory agency was legitimate. Floyd’s test would be a non-positive in the US, and many other countries.

Ultrarob thinks the decision is unsurprising, given that USADA controls the pool of acceptable arbitrators.

Allen Gathman says Landis got robbed.

Life, Liberty and Property is bummed.

GroupNewsBlog has read most of everything,

My view...

This is absolute bullshit.

Full Post with Comments...

AP/Pells says Guilty, publication today

AP/Eddie Pells claims to have gotten some documents with a 2-1 Guilty verdict.

According to documents obtained by AP, and to be made public later Thursday, the vote was 2-1 to uphold the results, with lead arbitrator Patrice Brunet and Richard McLaren in the majority and Christopher Campbell dissenting.

The apparently voided the T/E, but accepted the IRMS/CIR results. We await the details of the decision to see how this was justified.

The CyclingNews also reports that Landis has lost his year long fight against doping charges. CyclingNews spoke to Pat McQuaid who had this to say:

It is true, we have been on to USADA and others about it," McQuaid said. "We can confirm that Pereiro will be the winner of the 2006 Tour de France, and that Floyd Landis will get a two year ban." There has been no official statement on the start date of the ban, but McQuaid speculated it would run from the end of the 2006 Tour.

Full Post with Comments...

Thursday Roundup

Day 8 in the Landis decision watch dawns with tension rising in anticipation of the arbitration announcement.

News
The Houston Chronicle's cycling notebook catches up on cycling news from the past week including the official closing of the Landis arbitration hearings and the impending decision announcement.

The VeloNews reports that cyclist Jorg Jaksche received a one year suspension to end early next July for his use of HGH and EPO. It is felt that the shorter than normal suspension resulted from his cooperation with authorities .

The CyclingNews posts that the Grand Tours are out of the Pro Tour. After years of disagreement, UCI president Pat McQuaid said the the UCI will accept demands from Grand Tour organizers to no longer be part of the ProTour system. It also covers the Jaksche story as well as the continuing war of words between the Spanish cycling federation and the UCI over Alejandro Valverde.

PezCyclingNews Eurotrash Thursday is full of the UCI news of Valverde, the Pro Tour vs Grand Tour controversy, and the new UCI tough stance against doping that will be instituted at the World Championships this year. Pez also mentions the soon to be announced Floyd Landis decision which it hopes will be fair and thinks it should be after all the time the deliberations have taken.

Floridatoday.com wonders where all the good sports have gone, and provides countless examples of "bad sports" including Floyd Landis who is said to still maintain his innocence in the face of "concrete evidence" against him. The standards for "concrete evidence" are apparently not what they used to be.

The Vancouver Sun publishes part 1 of an extensive article about Canadian cycling team Symmetrics Cycling Fueled By FarmPure and the effects of doping in cycling on members of the team. Svein Tuft, who was described as having been "burned out," quit cycling before coming back to join the team, though he would not elaborate on the doping issues which ostensibly caused him to quit. There is also a top ten of doping scandals listed with the Landis saga claiming the number 1 spot:

1. Floyd Landis, 2006: Floyd Landis (above) is still officially the winner of the 2006 Tour de France, though that is in dispute. Landis failed a drug test, which found synthetic testosterone in his system. It also found he had an unusually high ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone in his body. Both indicators suggest he took some form of testosterone to enhance his performance. Landis denies he used drugs, and is fighting to keep his title. A decision is expected in the case within a week.

Blogs
PJ senses a change of atmosphere in the square, and even though the smoke is still black the anticipation is much greater than it has been at any time this week.

Rant writes that Pat McQuaid has waved the white flag and surrendered to the "big three" cycling grand tours. Rant also gives us the weather report for "the square" where we all wait for the Landis decision to be announced. Today should be sunny and calm, tomorrow on the other hand...

Finger Food is trying to write ahead of the decision announcement, whenever it comes Friday, Saturday or Sunday, and hopes he's guessing right about the result. But he's not saying which way he's guessing.

Finger Food later passed on the judgment of another writer, Bob Ford: "Cooked case."

Suitcase of Courage expects the result of the "wheels of justice(?)", and applauds The Outcast for its description of Landis carbo-loading with beer before going on a ride-along.

Full Post with Comments...