Hearing - Some comments of note

We call to your attention some recent comments that seems worthy of wider notice.

pcrosby:

I cannot believe that a "fair" process will let a witness decide what questions he will answer and the ones he will not. Jacobs played it well in trying to proceed. If "the majority" does not strike Lemond's testimony, then they have abdicated all control over the testimonial evidence, except preventing testimony being given. And there is no appellate authority to tell them that they got it wrong.

Also noteworthy that the railroad engineer is making the train keep rolling down the track. Landis' attorneys must be in turmoil and in most courts I think there would be an adjournment to permit the issue to be briefed and decided. The panel could then put the screws to USADA/WADA to bring lemond back in or lose his testimony and get into the refusal issue. Or (more likely and by "the majority") not. But the dust would settle and then it could move on.

(later)

For those wondering: Lemond would have made the disclosure to Landis in an effort to establish a feeling of intimacy and to induce a similarly intimate disclosure by Landis. It's an individual judgment call on whether or not he accomplished what he wanted: an admission of doping. And that turns in part on your evaluation of his credibility and accuracy of memory. None of that was tested in cross.

cleduc:

Whatever happened or didn't happen with Lemond his little to do with whether Landis used performance enhancing drugs or not in my opinion. It’s a whole lot of verbal chatter that doesn’t prove anything one way or the other and can’t possibly be substantiated. I’m sure the Landis side will counter with their side of the story that will leave the issue unresolved in terms of proving what really happened or didn’t happen between them. It will be Lemond’s word vs Landis’ word. Nothing is proven.

Either the USADA can defend what they’ve done to establish Landis had performance enhancing drugs in his system or not. Virtual verbal hearsay from Lemond has little bearing on that issue given his past with Armstrong and his position at the outset on Landis – before they had talked.

What went on or didn’t go on with Lemond does little to bring us any closer to the truth.

Anonymous:

Polygraph 'em all. The only thing missing from this debacle is the "...videotape." Ever since Lance Armstrong won the TDF, Lemond has tirelessly sought to impugn the character and credibilty of Armstrong and now Landis. This much is certain. The halcyon days of American cycling appear to be long gone.

So, what is the prospect of Team Discovery Channel getting an American sponsor now? Perhaps this was Lemond's ulterior motive for testifying seeing Armstrong has an ownership interest in the team.

Everything that happened today seems to be the result of insinuation and subterfuge. Without an actually record of the alleged call between Landis and Lemond and without scientific voice authentification, then it seems Lemond's testimony was sought by the USADA to illicit the effect obtained: to get the focus away form the lab's bad science.

If Will Geoghegan made the call as alleged, then that is clearly reprehensible. It may indeed cost Landis any possible moral victory, especially if the panel rules against him.

Ultimately, truth is never about science. Science, like everthing else, is servant to the agenda of those in power. I fear Landis is being made an open show (since he requested the public hearing) so that no athlete subject to ADA will choose this route in the future. I believe Landis is being sacrificed, and there are far too many sick people on both sides of the pond that love to have it so. Fear and intimidation and very strong tools for control and will be more successful in curbing future doping than good science.

Jeff

I understand your position and agree with you opinion. My point was intended to highlight the blatant unfairness of the (likely, eventual, already made?) ruling not to strike LeMond's testimony. Regardless of whether it was truthful or false, the Landis side did not have anything approaching a reasonable opportunity to examine, question, or counter his testimony. The arb panel essentially sanctioned (allowed, approved, endorsed) LeMond making unsupported statements that have been taken in the hearing as fact, without the Landis side having the chance to probe the accuracy of his statements. LeMond was allowed to very publically drop a highly damaging bomb and then leave.

The USADA legal team was responsible for bringing us this sad soap opera. It's distressing that they would stoop so low at the expense of both LeMond and Landis.

Let me be perfectly clear for any USADA and LeMond supporters reading this:

USADA purposely threw Greg LeMond under the bus to make a minor legal point and incredibly major / sensational PR point against Landis.

USADA did Greg LeMond no favors and much damage.

Congrats USADA legal team brain trust! I'm so proud to be among the public that pays the majority of your salary. Not!

Nick writes (in part):

The sadness and sleaziness of this case is almost overwhelming. All this tragedy because of a bike race.

I need another bike ride, but I really need a shower to wash away the disgust I'm feeling for the whole process.

Barnett sure earned his taxpayer dollars today. Bill Hue picked him out as the hatchet man days ago.

On Geoghegan, and probably others, Spike writes:

At some point in most peoples adolescence, they stop riding their bike and more on toward adulthood.

Some, however, continue to ride.

A few continue to ride and continue to be adolescents.