The Winnowing: WADAwatch

WADAWatch was started because the sometime-jurist author was taken aback by what he believes is the horrible wording of the WADA Code. It intrigued him enough to take vacation time to go to a WADA Conference for the press and meet and speak to many of the principals. His meta-legal analyses of The Code seem to us essential reading to anyone interested in rationalizing The Code. (Unfortunately, that may not include many of the current stakeholders.) One of the points he finds most troubling is the abandonment of the Quigley rule, something which seemed to have formed good guidance to CAS panels before the adoption of the WADA Code.

[Back to the Introduction]


As Trust but Verify prepares to shut down this superb Encyclopaedia Floydia, many of its readers are still awestruck at the outcome(s) of the Floyd Landis case(s): a victory fully enjoyed by 'the anti–doping movement' in arbitration, and withdrawal of his US Court case. It was late–summer 2008, when WADA president John Fahey announced WADA's contentment: the 'aggressive campaign against' that movement by Floyd Landis came to its arbitrated end.

And only two weeks ago, Landis withdrew his US Court case, leaving unexamined a vital, major scrutiny of the explicit conflicts of interest that permeate the private world of major sports legal arbitration.

The facts and evidence of Floyd's case stood for something profound: the fundamental concept that even Athletes have civil rights, and that a quasi–legal system of Jurisprudence/private arbitration that sought to retain monopoly control of those Athletes' lives, should uphold Western legal ideals in according those rights.

[MORE]


The Landis Decisions offer proof that such is not to be, as long as a 'small group of insiders' is permitted to prioritize the protection of their own livelihoods, and the incestuous legal fraternity holding this monopoly power, throughout WADA, and Agencies, Labs and ADOs.

Those of us who were aghast that Dick Pound, former WADA president, might be installed as president of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, may wonder at what influence the man had had, in the CAS Decision confirming Floyd's positive Testosterone test. With the Landis Decision, CAS moved away from its prior legal basis, expressed in the famous Quigley Rule. That 15 year–old ruling called for implementation of a fair system, where 'rules are clear' and deviations from their meaning were often quashed, as we'd seen in the Landaluce case. WADAwatch believes, but certainly cannot prove, that the Landis Decision issued by CAS had some profound ex parte input from Pound: the former “Voice of WADA”, former candidate to become CAS' president. A Pyrrhic victory for the Omerta of WADA.

However, because Professeur de Ceaurriz and his LNDD lab techs, obsolete machines and tainted laboratory documentation, their pro forma COFRAC certification, the whitewashing French AFLD Ministry, vocal Dick Pound and WADA, with its 'independent expert witnesses' and institutional discrimination(s), supported by the USADA and Richard Young, who altogether (USADA and WADA) spent several millions of dollars, were fully supported by both the AAA Panel (majority), and the CAS Panel:

We do not know how, when, where and, to what degree
Floyd was ingesting Testosterone, if at all;

Thanks to Floyd Landis' legitimate, unnecessarily–expensive defense and appeal:

We do know how LNDD, USADA, WADA, AAA and CAS
confirmed theWADA Code's systemic viability
– in spite of having exposed its every
substantive and procedural flaw.

In other words: we don't know 'how Floyd was wrong', but we do know 'why WADA was right'.

Perfectly.

We may also never know, what honest inadequacies are, legally, nor what differentiates the acceptance of a WADA accredited lab having followed the concept(s) of rules (CAS Decision), rather than following the 'letter of the law'. Gone forever, are French accusations that Floyd's friends 'hacked' into the French lab's computer system (which some surmise was a way to disinform how evidence was destroyed, to erase traces of French shenanigans...), and gone, for some time, are the concepts expressly displayed in the WADA Code Fundamental Rationale.

We will never know why France was allowed to bring its renegade case against Floyd without being in violation of WADA Code Article 15.4, nor why its lab, in violation of Article 6.4, received full support throughout Floyd's disciplinary process. We will never know why USADA was not required to inform WADA of 'departures' (Article 7.1/7.2) before Floyd had to spend millions trying to prove those multiple, inexcusable LNDD failures. And the list goes on...

Someday Athletes may realize that the present system only serves to act as an Insurance Policy, protecting Event Organizers from Sponsorship withdrawal. WADAwatch hopes to aid Athletes, by simply encouraging WADA to enforce internally, the words of its Fundamental Rationale, not the least of which being: “Respect for rules and laws”.

Thanks to our friends, who made Trust but Verify THE daily Floyd site.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Christiane Ayotte

Christiane Ayotte is the director of the Montreal WADA lab, and testified for USADA at both the AAA and CAS hearings. She quickly sent a brief reply to our solicitation.

[Back to the Introduction]


Thanks for the invitation.

All what I had to say in relation to the findings reported by Paris, the interpretation of the results, all the arguments raised by the athlete's experts is totally contained in the declarations submitted to the CAS Panel. [...] I have no desire for polemic and see no reason to challenge the faith that is yours. Friends must trust, not verify.

All the best!

Christiane Ayotte, Ph.D.
INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Race Junkie

Race Junkie is a blogger who is most truly resplendent in the full-foaming rant. On this occasion, she takes off the rabid mask and adopts more respectable form, reflecting her day job as a civil rights attorney.

[Back to the Introduction]

In the two-odd years since Operacion Puerto broke bang in the middle of the Giro d’Italia, bringing a good hundred cyclists into disrepute and effectively ending the careers of, well, Jan Ullrich mostly, the big questions remaining in the fight against doping seem to be: should it be done, are we doing it the right way, and, on a related note, does it seem to be working?

[MORE]


Should it be done? Of course.

Leaving aside the moral argument that winning through cheating is a cheap two-dollar watch of a victory, which it is, I don’t think a very young or very flush rider—or team manager, for that matter--with history-in-the-making riding on his or her choice is in the best position to make an objective judgment as to whether taking some dubious concoction of unknown long-term safety or efficacy is a good idea—that’s right, I think we need to protect riders from themselves, as well as the avarice of those who literally profit off their success.

Are we doing it the right way?

Sometimes. I’m no scientist, but rigorous out-of-competition doping controls seem to be a good idea to keep some folks from amping up their pre-race training only to reap the benefits by racing clean at showtime, and during-competition controls are unquestionably the right thing to do for the sake of the riders—dirty and clean—and the sport itself. I think the problem is in the process: as in the Landis case, setting up the “right” outcome through press blitz only obfuscates the truth, and not requiring an independent lab to analyze the “B” samples guarantees that the lab and the people who hired it have a vested interest in proving they got it right in the first place. For my money—and I say this as someone who benefits from gross rumormongering—confidentiality and objectivity should be the top priorities to ensure both perceived and actual justice.

Finally, is it working?

Well, certainly the governing bodies’ argument that snagging so many dopers only proves the controls are working is ludicrous, in that to me it only proves that (1) the new generation whose mindset we’ve presumably changed is just as dirty as the previous ones, and (2) as soon as one method’s detectable, the race is on to find the Next Big Thing that’ll outwit the tests.

But can we stop, just because human frailty so often outpaces science? No. Because one day, once again, I’d like to gasp at the beauty and power of a spectacular win without having to wonder, just a little bit, whose guiding hand, or needle, is behind it.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: One Mint Julich

One Mint Julich is a frequent contributor on the Daily Peloton Forums, and heavily participated in the productive scientific discussion there. At our request, he summarizes it all from his point of view as follows.

[Back to the Introduction]

I’m a scientist who is fairly familiar with, though not expert in, the methodology used to test Floyd. I was fairly impressed with the evidence against him in the IRMS test, including:

1)the size of the delta values for one of the metabolites;

2)that this metabolite also exhibited a large delta value in Floyd’s samples after several other stages of the TDF;

3)that a second metabolite also had a sizeable delta value (after both stage 17 and as I recall, several other stages), above or very near the 3.0 criterion (depending on how one treated the standard error for the procedure)

4)that the delta values for the remaining two metabolites, though not reaching the 3.0 criterion, were still substantially negative;

I did not feel that the various technical errors pointed out during the trial were that damning against WADA’s case. For example, the evidence was very compelling that the metabolites were identified correctly, and while contamination was possible (which could skew the delta value of a correctly identified metabolite), it seemed to me unlikely to exist to the extent needed to account for the high delta values, and there was no evidence raised during the trial to indicate there might have been such contamination. Certainly the amount of sloppiness should raise some concern, since if the lab consistently made this many errors, sooner or later they would likely significantly affect the conclusions of some doping test. But I did not think they did in this particular case.

I also believe that the conclusion was strengthened by the initial positive T/E test. Granted, there were problems with that test, too, and in the end it was actually thrown out by the panel. But calling results inadmissible does not mean the conclusion they point to is false, any more than failing to read a defendant his/her rights means the defendant didn’t commit the crime. Floyd did have a fairly high T/E value, I think that’s very clear, and given that the T/E test is an independent indicator of synthetic testosterone, I think it provides greater reason to believe in the IRMS results.

Having said all this, I never felt the case against Floyd was slamdunk, and had this been a capital crime, where guilt must pass the beyond reasonable doubt test, I would have been somewhat conflicted. I felt the biggest problem was the lack of consistency among the delta values for different metabolites. The literature generally indicates that the delta values of these metabolites follow each other closely, and given the origin of these values, that is what one would expect. WADA did produce some evidence that this would not be the case following transdermal application of testosterone, but this was preliminary data, based on only a few cases, has not yet to my knowledge been published, and still lacks, I believe, a strong conceptual basis.

The bottom line for me, though, was that one very high delta value. Barring contamination, I don’t see how it could indicate anything but exogenous testosterone.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Dirt Roadie

Dirt Roadie is a 56 year old attorney, "practicing until he gets it right." When cycling, he says he prefers riding the high mountain and low desert terrain of Colorado and Utah, on or off-road. He participated in our analysis of the CAS appeal.

[Back to the Introduction]

Floyd, and allegations of doping. So, looking back, what happened and what have we learned?

Human behavior is, on a large scale, dictated by faith (think Islam, Taoism, Buddism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity). But even in secular issues, one is often faced with taking one side or the other based largely on just such faith, since the "truth" may never be known.

[MORE]


I've never met the guy. I have no idea if a conversation with him would get beyond "Wow, you're Floyd Landis. Cool!" I will note that the only person who is likely to truly know whether Floyd used testosterone claims he did not. 'Nuff said. However, I am also not inclined to accept the "legal" conclusion that he did, partially because I also see nothing in his miracle ride that cannot be readily accounted for by the events of the two days as described by StarrTrek's saga of the magic water bottle.

If, as I am strongly led to believe, he did not use testosterone, his story is one of the great travesties of sporting history.

And if he did use testosterone, it may still be.

Indeed, there were never any allegations of blood doping, use of EPO or other similar and blatantly egregious offenses. But I'll use the word innocent in the broader sense of meaning either truly innocent or at least not guilty of anything more than a minor infraction when compared with the "industrial strength" offenses noted above.

In the 2006 Tour de France, Floyd Landis had a VERY bad day (a "jour sans") followed by a VERY, VERY good day when Floyd put all his remaining chips on the table and won the hand.

Then came the extended bad period commencing when Floyd was accused of doping based upon LNDD lab tests of, shall we say, questionable validity. See Arnie Baker's The Wiki Defense.

There were two independent arbitration hearings, AAA/CAS and CAS. But in contrast to typical legal proceedings where an appellate court reviews a lower court decision for "error," the second arbitration hearing started over from scratch. Each time the arbitrators did little more than rubber stamp the allegations of USADA, despite the AAA acknowledging clear problems with the lab work and one of three arbitrators ruling in Floyd's flavor. The written CAS opinion resonated with a decidedly less-than-objective tone.

I was reminded of a case I dealt with many years ago involving "scientific" data in the context of a "bottom of the bureaucracy" DMV administrative proceeding (NOT a trial in a court of law). Very simply, the ONLY issue was whether the blood alcohol content was above .15 %.

A machine had shown a BAC of .155%, .005% over (two zeroes after the decimal). BUT, the machine's "accuracy" was considered acceptable if it read within ± .01 (just one zero after the decimal) of the presumed value when testing a specially prepared "control" sample.

So, the machine read over the legal limit by just HALF of the acceptable error of the device. (Think of trying to measure to the nearest inch using a yardstick marked only in feet.)

Nonetheless, that issue clearly sailed right over the head of the DMV hearing examiner (next step up from the guys who give driving tests) who pounded his gavel (Yes, he had a freaking gavel) and proclaimed, "These machines are very accurate!"

In Floyd's case, both the AAA and the CAS might just as well have pounded their gavels and announced, "These labs are very accurate." Indeed, the CAS panel explicitly stated "LNDD benefits from the presumption that it conducted sample analysis in accordance with international laboratory standards." Sort of a Nixonesque, "if a certified lab does it, it's not improper."

All the while, Floyd's "guilt" was taken to heart by the Floyd critics, many of whom were part of the anti-doping system, happy to have a scapegoat. The word "witchhunt" has been used repeatedly and accurately.

Is/was there a doping problem in cycling? Yup, no question. Should an innocent cyclist be sanctioned? Seems like an easy enough question with an obvious answer, but the anti-doping crusaders seem to think that destroying the reputation and livelihood of an innocent individual is acceptable "collateral damage." Yup, capital punishment for jaywalking. That'll stop 'em.

In a final step, Floyd presented extensive evidence and asked a U.S. Federal Court to acknowledge flaws in the CAS under applicable legal standards, suggesting a system seemingly dedicated only to achieving "convictions" and not necessarily based upon justice or accuracy. But alas, we will never know how this challenge would have played out. In itself, this may be a systemic travesty equivalent to that endured individually by Floyd.

In the end we may have only learned that bad things can happen to good people and that "truth" is only a relative concept. And in a witchhunt where the target is the Wicked Witch of the West, the victim may unacceptably be Glinda, the Good Witch of the South.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Larry's Last

Larry, the loquacious, has been a frequent contributer and commenter here and at Rant. He's taken full advantage of the lack of length restrictions here in the blogosphere. A banking attorney, his calling card here was "Larry's Curb Your Antitipcation", a researched series considering various legal issues, anticipating things in the CAS appeal.

He originally wrote most of the following in comments at Rant, though this is revised here.

[Back to the Introduction]


I was sorry to hear about the end of the blog, but I guess it’s time.

My primary emotion is a certain kind of relief. Like most legal disputes, the Landis case dragged on past the point where it made any sense. Floyd deserves credit for finally putting an end to this chapter in his life. Sometimes it takes more courage to end a fight than to continue it.

I am grateful to Floyd Landis for providing us with a detailed examination of the anti-doping system at work. It is the closest such examination we’re ever likely to see. Whatever you may think of the outcome of the Landis case (and my thoughts on this are on the record), Landis and USADA funded millions of dollars of legal process, producing a considerable body of information, most of which is publicly available. This body of information is not complete (and no body of information is ever complete), but with enough time and background knowledge, anyone can dive into this information and reach a reasonably informed conclusion about the Landis case, and about the anti-doping effort in general.

[MORE]


I come away from this experience convinced that the anti-doping effort is a failure. For the most part, the ADAs do not catch the dopers, nor do they deal fairly with the athletes they accuse of doping.

I think the main reason the ADAs are failing is that their science is not up to the job of catching dopers. In the Landis case, the media was fond of saying that the ADAs “found” artificial testosterone in Landis’ system, but this was not even close to the truth. Artificial testosterone is chemically identical to natural testosterone, and even on a subatomic level, you cannot tell the difference between a molecule of artificial testosterone and a molecule of natural testosterone. This is the way it works with the current crop of performance-enhancing drugs: they mimic natural human biochemistry, and they look for all the world like stuff that humans produce naturally. Finding performance-enhancing drugs in a human body is NOT like finding a plum in a pie, or a fly in a bowl of soup.

It turns out that the anti-doping tests rely heavily on statistical analysis. The tests look for a statistical anomaly – a measure of stuff found in an athlete’s system that is supposed to be so unusual that it could not have occurred by chance. Then the scientists try to prove that the measurement would NOT be unusual if the athlete doped. This is not a bad way to conduct science, so long as the scientists proceed carefully.

But as we’ve seen, the ADA scientists have not proceeded carefully. The measurements they took of the stuff in Landis’ system (even if these measurements were reliable and believable) turn out NOT to be so unusual after all. It turns out that the scientists have not done the testing they needed to do to determine what is usual and what is unusual … and worse, the scientists have drawn improper conclusions from the little testing they HAVE performed.

An optimist might conclude that the ADA’s science will improve in time, and that the anti-doping effort will improve along with the science. But I am not an optimist. It is obvious that performance-enhancing drugs are “improving”, becoming both more performance-enhancing and more difficult to detect. Even today, the use of most performance-enhancing drugs goes undetected, and many of these drugs are simply not detectable by any means. It may simply be the case that the science does not exist for the detection of some of these drugs. Moreover, even if there is a scientific means to detect the current drugs and the new drugs, there is no present ability to fund the development of this science. Contrast the budget of an outfit like USADA with the billions and billions of dollars spent each year for research and development of new drugs.

There is no realistic hope that sport can be made drug-free by urine testing, or by blood testing, or by any variety of scientific test. All that’s left for the anti-doping effort is to deter drug use by other means, by ramping up the punishment for athletes sanctioned for drug use (or alleged drug use), and by relying on traditional police efforts (wiretaps, informants and criminal penalties) to catch the dopers. The criminalization of anti-doping may have its advantages, but I have no interest in being a fan of any sport that relies too heavily on criminal law to stamp out cheating. It is not my idea of entertainment to watch cyclists being carted off in handcuffs. I’d rather tolerate the doping than watch the Tour transformed into some kind of multi-national “sting” operation.

We’ve talked about how the anti-doping system can be improved, but in the current state of the anti-doping movement, the only change being considered is how to get “tougher” on dopers. There will be no reforms to improve fairness to the accused athlete, or testing accuracy.

Where does this all lead? It is obvious that doping is an integral part of nearly every sport, as is anti-doping. Most athletes will get away with doping; a few athletes will be caught and will face different degrees of punishment, depending on the sport. A few athletes will be wrongly accused of doping, and will have no realistic avenue for self-defense, nor will we have any way to tell (short of an honest confession) which accused athletes are guilty and which are innocent. Those of us who are sports fans will have to put up with this situation as best we can. Those who choose to become athletes may have to dope in order to earn a living, and will have to live with the unfairness inherent in the anti-doping effort.

As for me, while I’ll probably never enjoy being a fan as much as I used to, I will take the attitude that every athlete is competing clean, except for a handful conclusively proven to have doped. If I’m unable to take that attitude, then I won’t watch, because what would be the point?

Take care and see you down the road.

Full Post with Comments...

The Winnowing: Howard Jacobs

Howard Jacobs, AthletesLawyer.com, actively represented Landis through the AAA hearing, and is well known for his defending many doping cases. Not wanting to dwell on specifics, he wanted to highlight some of the unique things about the atmosphere of the case:

[Back to the Introduction]

I think the Pepperdine hearing was a unique experience for those who were interested enough to follow a doping case from start to finish, even if the doping case at issue was atypical of most such cases. The fact that everything was made available - from the laboratory documents themselves, to the briefs and evidence, to the actual examination and cross-examination of witnesses, allowed those who were interested to draw their own informed opinions about the accuracy of the test results, the quality of the laboratory work, the fairness of the rules, and the fairness of the arbitration process itself.

[MORE]


Not surprisingly, different people viewing the same evidence came to markedly different conclusions on each of these subjects. While I have my own opinions, they are based on the same evidence and the same testimony that has resulted in such exhaustive and detailed debate on your blog site and others. What I do hope is that this process revealed that drug testing and the anti-doping process is not as black and white as most people previously believed.

It is doubtful that such a public hearing will ever occur again, as it is doubtful that such unique circumstances will repeat themselves in the future.

The public leak of the "A" results, the online posting of the "B" results the moment they were reported, and the intense media scrutiny around a positive drug test of the Tour de France champion created a situation where a public hearing made sense. Those same factors also created a situation where the media actually cared enough to attend and cover the Pepperdine hearing.

Those factors are not likely to combine again.

In fact, if the rules regarding disclosure of positive test results are followed, no athlete will ever request a public hearing, as the test results and the existence of the hearing would remain confidential until after the arbitration decision is rendered.

Best regards,

Howard Jacobs

Full Post with Comments...

Winnowing Words - Introduction

When we decided to roll up the tent at the end of the month, we thought it would be good to have some final thoughts on the matter, and not just from us.

To that end, we've contacted a number of people from all sides of the discussion, and asked them if they had anything they'd like to say. Some said yes, some said no, some hoped to participate but found they could not, and some didn't answer in time for us to include. We regret the submissions fall towards one side of the debate. We did try to send a balanced set of invitations, but response is beyond our control.

In order to entice those who didn't want to make too big a commitment, we suggested "a few paragraphs" of perhaps 500 words, and if struggling for particular topics, we offered as suggestions:

• Merits of the Landis case;
• Conduct of the Landis case;
• Coverage and discussion of the case;
• Wisdom, merit and effectiveness of anti-doping as currently practiced
• What could be done in anti-doping that might work better
  

Some people took these are marching orders, and others just wrote what they felt they wanted to address.

We're going to roll them out a few a day until the end of the year, when we hit the big red button. We hope you find them interesting -- we did.

• Howard Jacobs
• Larry
• Dirt Roadie
• One Mint Julich
• Race Junkie
• Christiane Ayotte
• WADAwatch
• Carlton Reid
• Klaas Faber
• Duckstrap
• John Gilliland
• Rational Head
• Maurice Suh and Daniel Weiss
• John Amory
• Spinopsys Phil
• Bruce Goldberger
• Arnie Baker
• Joe Papp
• Dan Rosen
• Wolfram Meier-Augenstein, part I.
  
• Wolfram Meier-Augenstein, part II.
  

Full Post with Comments...

Merry Christmas!

Full Post with Comments...

Increasingly Irregular Report 48

Just when I thought I was out.........they pull me back in

(link)

Hey, we finally updated the Timeline, but not yet the Current Status, or the Key References.

Critical Section got an email from a pal who said Floyd Landis has been taking part in weekly rides with his cycling club. CS then goes on the reminisce about Floyd's amazing stage 17 ride all those years ago. It was indeed a "white swan". Here are the stats that prove it:

* 5 hours 23 minutes and 36 seconds.
* Covering 125 miles (81 miles alone in the wind).
* At a speed of 19.3 mph/hr.
* Hitting a max speed of 52 mph/hr.
* Averaging 281 watts when moving for the whole ride and 318 watts over the last two hours.
* Averaging 324 watts while pedaling for the whole ride and 364 watts over the last 2 hours.
* At an average cadence of 89 rpm.
* Transferring 5,456 Kjoules of energy to his Cycleops PowerTap.
* Taking, no joke, a total of 70 water bottles (480 ml each) from the car to keep himself cool and hydrated.
* Attacking about a quarter of the way up the Col des Saisies for 30 seconds at 544 watts, which settled into a 5-minute peak of 451 watts, which continued for 10 minutes at an average of power of 431 watts, and left everyone in his dust after 30 minutes at an average power of 401 watts.
* Spending 13.2% of his time or 43 minutes coasting like a rocket on the descents and another 60% between 4 to 7 watts per kilogram of body weight (aka, the pain cave).
* Holding onto 373 watts over the Col de Joux-Plane.

New OUCH teammate Bobby Lea was just interviewed by The Morning Call:

I just got back from a training camp in Temecula, Calif.

What was that like? Well, it was mostly the new guys to the team, just some informal training sessions. Real camp starts Jan. 22.

Anybody of note on the team? Floyd Landis [2006 Tour de France winner, stripped of his title after testing positive for steroids].

What's he like? I was a little apprehensive at first, just because I knew the level of riding that was going to be required was going to be harder than any team I've ridden for in the past. I didn't know what Floyd's approach would be, if he was a high-strung guy, but he's just the opposite.

What were training rides like with Floyd? Well, the first part of riding with Floyd, he's so fit right now that most of us were having trouble keeping up with him. Another part that made it an adventure is that he never knew where he was going, nor did we, and every once in a while, we'd get lost. When we got split on climbs, part of the group always seemed to make a wrong turn.

Cycling Fans Anonymous passes some Landis trash and wonders why OUCH has no internal testing program. Could it be they have no money for one?

Rumors are flying about Landis at the moment. Some people are saying that he may have spilled the beans on some version of The Truth to one of his rich benefactors, supposedly giving some sort of confession to one-time doping after his bonk. Time will tell if there is any truth to this. Meanwhile his OUCH teammate Tim Johnson suggests that Landis is in good shape as he prepares for his comeback, saying that Landis "crushed us at training camp a few weeks ago in Asheville." As far as I can tell, OUCH is not part of any bio-passport program, which raises a whole other set of questions.

In the same post, CFA points to a report on a symposium about genetic doping futures that included openly pro-doping participants. We can't go along with "no holds barred", but wonder how to enforce limits. And, he reminds us of a Cyclingnews interview with Tim Johnson, CX whiz, and OUCH team member:

The excitement of the revamped team has been brewing for months with the addition of OUCH and Landis to the US-registered continental team. Johnson confirmed an on-bike relationship with his new teammate since the mid 1990's when Landis was well-known as a professional mountain biker. "I think on a basic level I'm excited to be able to have another tool at our disposal," Johnson said. "Floyd has a lot of experience obviously one of the most talented riders in the world. Having him as a card to play is going to be huge. I would think after having a major joint like a hip replaced, that a come back to the highest level in cycling would be difficult. But he crushed us at training camp a few weeks ago in Asheville. I know for a fact that he will be on good form at the Tour of California."

Johnson also says there will a last OUCH camp towards the end of January before the AToC, and there may have been another one recently.

Yahoo has a lawyer discuss a recent settlement between NASCAR and a female former employee who claimed harassment, saying she probably did pretty well:

I just think you have a very deep-pocketed defendant who was suffering in the court of public opinion. This was a way for NASCAR to stop the bleeding and not air any dirty laundry or even any allegations of dirty laundry.

You can’t help but notice the timing, which is during the holiday season when news gets less emphasis and people aren’t really paying attention to NASCAR.

...

The vast majority of litigation is settled without a trial. It’s no great prediction for an experienced litigator to predict settlement.

The key to a case of this kind is to survive summary judgment. What a defendant tries to do is present evidence that a plaintiff doesn’t even have a leg to stand on. Even if her allegations are true, there is no legal cause of action.

...

This case could have dragged on for two years before it went to trial and then many more on appeal. That’s expensive and stressful and by settling both sides eliminated risk.

We mention this because there are still people who think Landis paid USADA to settle his suit -- which USADA settled before it came to a determination about the cause(s) of action.

While we are winding down, Rant is running a series with lively discussion in the comments, working Towards a New Anti-Doping Approach, Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV and Part V

Race Junkie offers a list of ten Christmas wishes, #6, "Hooked on Phonics" courses for one WADA lab; #7, a good dose of common sense for Boonen; and #5, and another crack in Europe for one Floyd Landis.

Pepperdine Law School is having a symposium retrospective on the Landis case on Weds, Feb 27th. For some reason, they've invited some idiots from a blog to be on a panel with a Pulitzer Prize winner. Standards are slipping everywhere.

TBV summited Diablo today (20-Dec) for the first time
since The Mishap on 24-Sep. There was some ice and snow between
the American tower and the base of the Wall,
but it was pleasant to climb since they'd closed it off to cars.
Need to remember the scuba gloves for the descent, though, brrrr.

Those who don't know history, dept.

The Virtual Musette bemoans the lack of knowledge of cycling's past, telling a story of a site that wouldn't provide a link because TVM is largely about that old stuff, and now what's happening now. Amends here, TVM is a very interesting site we recommend checking out.

Full Post with Comments...

Quote of the Day, re: Twitter

From the people who brought you the T shirt to wear around all the bloggers of your acquaintance,

More people have read this shirt... (Despair.com)

we find this description of Twittering:

[A] simple explanation of it is that it is instant-messaging meets a blog- whereby subscribers can follow me on my daily journey through various mundane duties, irritating conversations, pointless revelations, whatever I choose to write about. The catch- no message can be longer than 140 characters. Think of it as blogging live in haiku.

...

I take as a given that Twittering is a largely pointless exercise that seems best suited as an outlet for narcissists and input for stalkers. Having been both in my lifetime, I can admit that earlier versions of myself might have rapturously embraced it as liberating. I harbor no such illusions now.

Despair, Inc., blog

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 47

Here and There
VeloNews (quoted by Bike World News) posts the OUCH team roster for the 2009 competitive season. Oddly, Floyd Landis is listed as new AND returning, go figure.

The roster:

"returning" Heath Net riders:
Rory Sutherland
John Murphy
Tim Johnson
Karl Menzies
Roman Kilun
Floyd Landis

"new" riders:
Floyd Landis
Cameron Evans
Andrew Pinfold
Bradley White
Bobby Lea
Jonathan Chodroff


Pez also talks about team OUCH:

The core group remains essentially the same with top riders Rory Sutherland, Karl Menzies, Roman Kilun, Tim Johnson, and the ever improving future star, John Murphy.

Incoming for 2009? The #1 big name is of course Floyd Landis. Behind him, two excellent pick-ups from Symmetrics in Cameron Evans and Andrew Pinfold, as well as the immensely powerful Bradley White (watch that name). Bobby Lea and Jonathan Chodroff round out the rest as two more high-quality names that will further add to the always dominant HealthNet, er, OUCH boys.

VelocityNation has an interview with new OUCH teammate and US Cyclocross champ Tim Johnson, who says,

"I've known Floyd since we were both racing mtn bikes in the mid-nineties. He was pretty exceptional as a junior and young pro before he started to run out of steam but he was already legendary in the NorthEast. He's obviously a seriously talented athlete and now that his body and hip is back in good shape, I think we'll be seeing him wearing a leaders jersey or three this season."

Nashville Cyclist says OUCH and Rock are the US teams to watch in '09, and looks forward to interesting matchups we're likely to see this year, especially between Rock Racing and OUCH -- like Landis/Hamilton battles. But what about Astana and Columbia, or won't they be doing enough of the domestic calendar to count?

Bicycle.Net posts USACycling's 13 UCI continental teams for 2009. OUCH is, of course, among them.

Danish TV2 reports the settlement as "Landis have given up".

Potholes and Road Apples at Lancaster Online notes Landis' return and our demise, a win-win if ever there was.

Dutch "Journalism and Doping" blog puzzles why Landis is always referred to as a Mennonite, when he long ago renounced the faith. Why isn't Armstrong "the cancer survivor Agnostic"?

---

CyclingNews reports that Columbia and Garmin will be using Don Catlin's Anti-Doping Sciences Institute (ADSI) for their internal testing program in replacement of the now defunct ACE.

Michele Ferrari himself offers some skepticism about the norms assumed with the biological passport; CyclingFansAnonymous thinks Ferrari's motivations are transparent, calling his article part of

his ridiculous crusade to attempt to discredit each and every anti-doping method known to mankind. He is so obvious, it is almost funny.

VeloNews' Explainer runs down the differences between US Major League sports and cycling doping control, identifying the distinctions between real unions and what Cycling has, and the resulting policies vs. WADA World.

Velonews reports Stefan Schumacher is threatening to sue the AFLD for defamation over his reported positives for CERA. Good luck with that.

George Vargas saw Floyd at the shop today and passed along some very familiar sentiments that many of us share. The photo below comes from "George's Epic Adventures".

Floyd at the shop with ,we assume, George.

The Fine Grind finally got around to reading Positively False (available at Amazon for $6.99, eligible for super saver shipping), and liked it right up to about the end of July 2006, when he started snoozing. That's when we came in.

An emailer points us to DOUBLEbikeMATCH, which is doing a challenge-match thing to help World Bicycle Relief. It's a good cause at the giving time of year.

Valedictory Dept.
Velo Vortmax offers his retrospective of the Landis case.

Makes no sense now, either. After two and a half years of blogging and arguing with people on cycling forums; study of testosterone metabolism, and WADA code, the Court of Arbitration of Sport conclusions make no sense at all! Floyd Landis was cheated by a corrupt system that presumes "guilt until proven guilty" with a healthy dose of trial by media, character assassination, leaks to the press, propaganda, outright lies, incompetent lab tests, and biased analyses of scientific data.

Podium Cafe's Ursula bids TBV a much appreciated fond farewell:

With the last court case over and Floyd due to ride again it makes sense that TbV was due to close shop. I do have a wild hope that Floyd would send one more message, a message of appreciation. As for the rest of us, if you've been a frequent reader of the site now or in the past, go on over and say thank you. Thanks, TbV and Mrs. TbV. Thanks strbuk and Judge Bill Hue. Thanks Marc and Ali. And thanks to all the contributors and fellow bloggers who took such a special interest in the case: Rant, Pommi, syi and many more. You folks have enriched our lives and when we next hear from you in relation to Floyd or in some other context our lives will be better for it.

SBS Cycling Central, written by old friend Spinopsys Phil, also bids TBV "adieu":

Whatever you might think of Floyd Landis you have to admit that lack of determination is not one of his character flaws. Now that his doping suspension is complete and all the lawsuits are out of the way, Landis will be rightly returning to the bitumen but his return also heralds a retirement of sorts for another determined mob, that of the blog Trust but Verify, which from day one of the Landis affair became the first stop for all the inside dope (pun intended) on anything related to that case. From there, over the lifetime of the Landis saga, TBV segued to all things doping, unflinchingly delving into the legal and scientific minutiae. Their team of experts and amateurs showed what new media can do in this digital age. There was a lot I didn't understand but I know I always came away better informed.

Omnibus Department
Lawjobs presents a good explanation of a metaphor we've never heard put so clearly.

[B]e careful or you will be "thrown under the bus."

Maybe this expression is foreign to you. Some people refer to this as being "hung out to dry" or "taking the fall." Let me explain. Being "thrown under the bus" is the workplace equivalent of being involuntarily thrown in front of an oncoming bus in order to slow the bus down and divert injury from the person who threw you in front of said bus.

Being thrown under the bus by a co-worker or superior is not just being called out for your failures. It is being blamed solely for something that is not necessarily, or entirely, your fault.

Too Late, Dept.
HuffPost reports:

"[W]e are expanding the Pulitzers to include many text-based newspapers and news organizations that publish only on the Internet." They are "stressing" that all entered material should come from news outlets that publish material at least weekly, "are primarily dedicated to original news reporting, are dedicated to coverage of ongoing stories and that adhere to the highest journalistic principles.

And finally, way down here in the buried lede dept., we will be folding shop at the end of the year, leaving the site up as a monument to numerous kinds of human folly. If people would like to make suggestions for valedictory stories, feel free to drop comments. We'll take them as hints, but no promises. We have one final project in the works.

Full Post with Comments...

Inquiring minds would like to know

Nobody, USADA or Landis, has said anything publicly about the settlement finalized last Friday, Dec 4th. If they aren't answering the calls that came from the press right away, neither is likely to talk to us on the record either.

If anyone starts answering questions, here are a few we'd like resolved.

• Is there a confidentiality provision prohibiting comment, or are people just being quiet?
  
• Is Landis free to race at the end of January?
• Has Landis paid USADA the $100,000?
  
• Is Landis going to be paying USADA the $100,000?

We still see no motivation for Landis to settle before seeing a USADA filing if the terms included him paying substantial money. Thus, we're inclined to think USADA made some concessions on the fine, but can't guess if there was any reciprocal gesture by Landis beyond agreeing to drop the action.

Some of the "Landis as antichrist" folks seem to think he gave up and paid, or will be paying the fine. This seems unlikely to us, but there's not yet proof one way or another. Should facts emerge, it'll be interesting to see what retractions and respin is done by whoever leapt to wrong conclusions.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 46

We'll have more news on the conclusion of Landis v. USADA as it becomes available...

Velonews picks it up, and steals our image. No comments yet from Landis, and VN reports:

No details of the settlement were released and a USADA spokesman declined comment as to whether Landis’ decision to withdraw the suit involved any concession on the part of the agency.

We understand Landis to be intensely training and not being particularly responsive to calls or mail, so it may be a while before anyone hears more. We'd expect MSM stories first if and when he has anything to say. That he's training hard likely means he's intending and expecting to race as soon as the suspension is over.

Velo Vortmax ruminates on the settlement, and it leaves him filled with loathing.

Rant notes the end, and ponders

I wish I could be confident that despite the outcome for Floyd Landis, the whole anti-doping system will change for the better. But the reality is that most of the players have the same jobs they had when this whole saga started — or they’ve been promoted.

That would include Travis Tygart and Richard Young.

Those watching calendars can note that the OJ Simpson robbery case went from incident on 13-Sep-2007 to sentencing on 6-Dec-2008. That's one year and 11 weeks from event through a full jury trial. The Landis case went from 26-Jul-2006 to an arbitration award on 20-Sep-2007 - one year, seven weeks; then to 30-Jun-2008 for the CAS appeal award, another seven months and a week. Now we're in December 2008, making it two years, four months and a week to get to something of a conclusion.

It's hard to argue that the "streamlined" WADA ajudication process has really sped anything up compared to actual court, or reduced costs to anyone. Independent of the many other hurdles in the WADA Code, depositions would have helped everyone - but there is no provision for them in The Code, even when they would be more effective than bringing everyone to a single hearing.

---

Racejunkie gets a jump on the holiday awards with her own collection for the year, including:

Crap Verdict of 2008: I love you, Iban, but this one's for Floyd Landis, whom even the brilliant underappreciated loyalists at trustbutverify and a crack legal team couldn't save from the scumly vendetta-driven selectively-prosecuting due-process-abusing lowlife press-yapping hypocrites over at UCI, WADA, and the Most Incompetent Chimp-Staffed Lab On Earth. Hell, even if you think he *did* do it, this was a freakin' travesty. And am I the only one going absolutely insane thinking of who's still zipping around happily in the high-paid Grand Tour-racing Classics-taking ProTour while poor Landis only just managed to scrape up a deal with an artificial-hip manufacturer? Oh well, at least he'll be racing domestically where we can see him...

According to Podium Cafe's "average age of cycling race winner" analysis there is real hope for Floyd Landis' comeback.

Full Post with Comments...

Fed Case Over

Landis and USADA agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice, in a filing yesterday. "With prejudice" means Landis can't refile. This looks like they settled, but we haven't seen any statements from anyone.

If USADA gave up the fine, then Landis is free to race, which is the immediate result he would have desired. I wouldn't be surprised if there were conditions not to talk about it, preventing either side from claiming moral victory. Independent of the merits of the underlying claims, USADA may have determined it was cheaper to let the fine go than litigate the matter; and Landis may have wanted his head clear for training and to move on, as much as he might like a deeper ultimate vindication.

We find it very hard to believe Landis would agree to a dismissal without at least seeing a filed reply from USADA if he'd been willing to pay the $100k fine. He'd already put his chips in, so there was no cost to making USADA show some cards. That makes us think the fine has either been reduced, or gone away completely as a condition of dismissal.




Note the dates were left blank, and negotiations concluded on the last day before USADA's reply filing was due. Though blanks are typical during negotiation, there's nothing like an external deadline to force a conclusion.

Velonews tried to get comment from USADA:

No details of the settlement were released and a USADA spokesman declined comment as to whether Landis’ decision to withdraw the suit involved any concession on the part of the agency.

Dirt Roadie writes in a comment,

Underlying what is presumably a settlement (as opposed to a mere abandonment of the case), there is probably some strong incentive and logic stemming from the fact that both sides had the possibility of losing.

USADA might spend another $100K litigating only to be able to collect the $100K "fine" against Landis if it should win. He would still be otherwise eligble for reinstatement. And if USADA were to lose (a very real possibility), the doors might be open to similar challenges to CAS decisions unless and until the CAS system is revamped to eliminate the apparent weaknesses.

Floyd probably had little to truly gain other than the vacatur of the $100K fine and perhaps some "moral" satisfaction. But the case would conceivably (or more accurately, probably) have dragged out long past his date for reinstatement in which case even a victory might have been too late to be truly useful.

So it seems very likely that the reality of the situation would almost dictate a compromise under which USADA would drop the $100K fine and Floyd would drop his case and its challenge to the CAS "system."

And, true, we will probably see no public comment. Confidentiality provisions are commonly included in settlement agreements.

It's almost always a good thing to have a resolution although it would have been very interesting to see how the merits of the case would have played out.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 45

As we noted the other day, expect the reply in Landis v. USADA to turn up in Pacer in the next few days.


The Boulder Report notes the Dude at the end of an evaluation of the AToC route. We agree the placement of the Palomar climb is a bummer. Maybe if they mix Idyllwild in too...

Joe Papp's blog is posting articles from elsewhere about Leogrande, and has pointers to Rant and us.

Podium Insight has a timeline of the Leogrande affair which is an addition to the discussion, but very incomplete -- It might usefully show when Papp testified in the Landis case, and when Papp and Leogrande began communication.

Rant comes to the rescue, explaining Papp and Leogrande first met in 2005, and did training together in 2006. Later in 2006, Papp got popped in Turkey. (At some point in late '06 or early '07, Papp contacted Arnie Baker and was rebuffed.) In March of 2007, Papp seemed to help direct Rock Racing at Redlands, where Leogrande did well, but Papp's business dealings with Rock fell apart for reasons that aren't clear. The pictures were taken, according to Papp, in March, at Leogrande's house. Then, in May, Papp testifies at the Landis hearing, stage 1 of whatever deal he struck with USADA. A small remaining part of the puzzle is the date of the postcard from Leogrande to Papp. Speculating, we'd guess it was from after training together in 2006, before Papp got nailed in Turkey, but we've seen nothing about that. Papp's discussion so far haven't said, nor has he addressed why Kayle would send him such a card if Papp hadn't been involved in the supply chain. (Maybe he did. TBV hasn't the time or interest to read the award.)

One of the things Bill Hue has been wondering about is Papp's involvement with the supply chain, and possible prosecution for trafficking We should assume that Papp has been cooperating with USADA, and take it for truth that he hasn't been prosecuted by the Feds so far. The lack of further charges by either party might mean there are no trafficking issues hanging over Papp, or that he cooperated enough, or that his holiday is dependent on continued cooperation. Suppose he was involved in Leogrande's supply, as suggested by the card, and he is cooperating with USADA and the Feds. Then take the "more stuff" claims made both by Papp and Sonye in comments at Rant, and you might reasonably conclude he has provided access to the supply chain, and there there are continuing investigations that are promising enough that nothing explicit is being said -- except perhaps, for some chain rattling.

With that, we take off our tin-foil hat for the night, and seek a container of half-and-half.

---

A time warp has pointed us to Michael Robertson's July 31, 2006 offer of $100,000 for Landis to take a polygraph on the TdF allegations. That might conveniently cover the fine CAS imposed, not that we trust lie detectors.

Velo Vortmax rails against SOP problems with the Biological Passport.

The Hook/Juanita Giles gets all philosophical, literally, about Plaxico Burress, mentioning Landis in the process.

The Creative Minority Report labels cheating teens the "Floyd Landis Generation", reflecting transformation into badly understood metaphor. Most of the facts are wrong, but there you are.

At DPF, Strategy brings to light some criticism of WADA and the IOC over doping control made by Bengt Saltin at an anti-doping forum in Berlin. The original report is in German.

He demands independent and competent specialists to oversee the control systems in order to improve the level of the laboratories used by WADA/IOC. According to Saltin, the labs are not good advisors to WADA/IOC, because the labs are in it for the money and anti-doping is a lucrative business for them.

Full Post with Comments...

Dude Abides, Dept.

An emailer points us to an encounter with the Big Landowski. (Do not be drinking the white stuff while reading.) For a while, sir, interviewer MKA reminds us of Affleck channelling Olberman, or maybe Olberman doing Olberman.

Landis is now alleged to have taken on
Fignon's hairstylist and Jan's nutritionist.

(WikiRef)

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 44

We figure from the latest scheduling order that the USADA reply in the Landis Federal case will probably be turned in Friday or Monday next week.

Reuters notes CAS handled nearly 300 cases this year, a record. Half the cases dealt with football (soccer) issues, and 1/3 with doping -- and Landis mentioned as one of prominance. Matthieu Reeb, the CAS boss, expects more under the revised WADA Code.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)'s new code, which comes into force on Jan. 1, steps up the war on performance-enhancing drugs. It will give sport's federations greater scope suspending for players who test positive, according to Reeb.

"The athletes will have nothing to lose in coming to us to try to get their suspensions reduced. We'll have to be vigilant in maintaining our rapid procedures," the Swiss lawyer said.

He seems to have forgotten about the $100,000 fine added to the Landis award on appeal. Or maybe he thinks that shouldn't be possible, even though he signed off on it.

AP/Eddie Pells reports Kayle Leogrande was given a two year suspension for a non-analytic positive based partly on testimony of Suzanne Sonye and Frankie Andreu, and partly on other evidence. Joe Papp, who figured in the Landis hearing, also turns up with pictures of Leogrande holding EPO vials. Papp and USADA say they were taken at Leogrande's; Leogrande sais they were taken at Papp's house. Leogrande was not re-hired by Rock Racing for 2009.

Those interested can read the USADA press release, and the PDF of the arbitration award.

Papp himself chips in with a couple of comments to this post, clarifying where pictures were taken, and objecting to being characterized as a "patsy". While we think he was badly used by USADA in the Landis case, TBV has no other opinions about him to inflict on the readership.

NBC/Abrahamson thinks the Leogrande case marks a positive sea-change.

Rant writes about the two year "non-analytical" suspension given Kayle Leogrande. Looks like you have to be very careful about what you write on a post card these days, and damn those pesky cell-phone cameras.


TopTenz cites Landis among the cases that make TdF Doping Allegations the #4 sports scandal of all time, behind the #3 Black Sox, #2 MLB/Steroids, and #1, OJ Simpson.

ESPN/Sprow passes the observation that teens are cheating at "unprecedented levels", and wonders if Bill Belichick (sic), Kelvin Sampson, or Floyd Landis are to blame. We wag our fingers at parents. And bears.

ESPN, among many, passes the urgent news that Armstrong will ride in Le Tour, but maybe to support someone else. The Giro/Tour double might be too tough for him to try to lead both.

The Examiner/Raia reports on some fiddling with the Amgen ToC route, with changes to the Prologue and first stage, and reduction of the Women's event to a single day. We think the Palomar finish is still planned, but don't see where it would be on the tentative route. A comment says it's the final stage to Escondido. A read of his source article at Velonews shows it isn't a mountaintop finish, which dissappoints us. There will be lots of time to organize a chase after the summit.

With the final stage of the 2009 Amgen Tour of California as a difficult point-to-point road race, there is a chance to see an overall lead change, as well as a change in the KOM jersey leader on the last day. With four climbs, including the highest point ever reached in the Amgen Tour of California, and two sprints, Stage 8, sponsored by Amgen, can easily be characterized as the most difficult final stage that the Amgen Tour of California has ever seen. The cyclists will have to fight through the very end of the race, due to the addition of Palomar Mountain (5,123 ft.). At 11.7 miles, a seven percent average grade, 4,200 feet of climbing and 21 switchbacks, Palomar Mountain will provide a challenging conclusion to the 2009 Amgen Tour of California. Organizers expect a hard sprint to the finish; as with all the Grand Tours of Europe, winning the final stage of the 2009 Amgen Tour of California is a prize coveted by the riders.

Velonews had one reader who wrote to welcome Landis back with the OUCH team, and VeloNews' "explainer" Charles Pelkey finally puts to rest the question of the first rider DQ'd from Le Tour for "cheating".

In a Cycling Weekly interview Lance Armstrong says he feels Floyd Landis didn't dope, well more specifically he said in an "American court of law" Floyd would not have been found guilty.

TruSport has posted something that has left me almost speechless from laughter. Geez Floyd, a slacker housecoat? What the fetch? Hey what about plagiarism?

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 43

Have a great "turkey day" everyone!

Here and There
Racejumkie wishes us all a Happy Thanksgiving too, and throws in a youtube gem and a "photo shopped" tidbit to boot.

Velo Vortmax "debates" the problems and concerns many have with WADA, the UCI, and the new "bio passport" program.

Bikerumor reviews recent activity in "busy" Floyd Landis' career.

The New Common Sense refers to the Schumacher case and feels Floyd Landis should keep pushing with his federal law suit, even though he has nothing to lose by doing so and Floyd might.

Full Post with Comments...

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.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 41

Here and There
The VeloNews notes that Floyd Landis' lawyers filed a motion Thursday, originally filed in September, in which Landis claimed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles that the three arbitrators in his CAS case had undisclosed conflicts of interest that may have affected the outcome of the appeal of his USADA arbitration ruling:

In the motion filed on Thursday, Landis’ attorneys claimed that evidence of arbitrators’ conflicts of interest on recently came to light after CAS recently posted information about past cases on its Web site.

Steroid Nation feels it's getting "obsessive" and "ridiculous" for Floyd Landis to continue his fight against doping allegations and the subsequent rulings therein.

Racejunkie has some "interesting" comments on cycling stalwart Bijarne Riis as well as "patron saint" of ex-dopers Michael Ball. She wonders who the heck will be a "domestique" for OUCH "bionic man" Floyd Landis. Who indeed? And, is there really a vast French wing conspiracy?

VeloNews makes note of the Landis to OUCH signing and mentions the wind tunnel testing in NC last week as well as the ongoing recomposition of the team.

WADAwatch ponders the recent proclamation by the wife of OP's infamous Dr. Fuentes that she will "spill the beans" , as it were.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 40

FloydLandis.com is back, sort of, as a redirect to the OUCH Sports Medicine site. We learned this via email from Rant, himself.

NY Daily News ITeam Blog snidely comments on Armstrong, and does a Landis drive-by en-route.

Cycling Weekly raps cyclists for offering any defense to doping charges, saying in a round-about way, "if you've been wronged, too bad, and shut up."

Is there anything more nauseating than the pathetic protestations of innocence and accusations of wrong-doing from a rider who has tested positive?

Tyler Hamilton started all this, with his lengthy 'Believe Tyler' campaign, which roped in his pet dogs as unwitting cheerleaders. Floyd Landis went down the academic route with a PowerPoint presentation stating his case.

...

If you believe you have been wronged, sue the laboratories for screwing up. Sue WADA for drafting illegal laws. Sue the sport's governing body and your national federations. See how far you get with that kind of action.

But do us all a favour and stop whining to favourable sections of the press, who are only too happy to help make your apologies for you and prove your case.

Otherwise, shut up, serve your ban and stop bleating, because it will only make you even more unpopular than you already are, which is jolly unpopular indeed.

Competitor Nor Cal is calling for forgiveness on Landis' return to racing.

Frank had some Floyd company on a training ride in North Carolina, and held on with some automotive assistance.

Racejunkie is very impressed with Jan Ullrich's current legal team, which now takes top spot in RJ's "cycling legal eagles" from Ivan Basso's crew.

Jan quite precisely testified that he never took then-banned performance-enhancing substances during the moments he was riding on his bicycle with Coast at the start of 2003. Well, that's the sort of beautiful barn-burning weaselry to make a lovelorn litigator's heart thump!

And they said Jan was not coachable.

Full Post with Comments...

Fed case pushed back

There's some docket action, and the first hearing is pushed back from Nov 24 to maybe Dec 22d. Los Angeles attorney Timothy Martin has put an appearance for USADA, so no connection yet to HRO. Opposition papers are due Dec 8th, and reply on Dec 15.

We'll update the archive a little later with copies, but there's nothing really to see.

11/10/2008	22	STIPULATION to Continue Hearing Of, And Briefing For, Petitioner's Amended Motion To Vacate Arbitration Award from November 24, 2008 to December 22, 2008 filed by Respondent United States Anti-Doping Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Continuing Hearing Of, And Briefing For, Petitioner's Amended Motion To Vacate Arbitration Award)(Martin, Timothy) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
11/10/2008	23	NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Timothy J. Martin on behalf of Respondent United States Anti-Doping Agency (Martin, Timothy) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
11/10/2008	24	CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Respondent United States Anti-Doping Agency, identifying Floyd Landis, United States Anti-Doping Agency. (Martin, Timothy) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

Full Post with Comments...

Haywood

We're pointed to the case of Susan Haywood by a comment:

Anyone able to comment on Sue Hayward's recent award of damages?

This is the first I've heard of the case, but it looks like there was an arbitration overturned along the way, and then a jury award of damages by a US Federal Court. I'm guessing the contractual basis for dispute resolution was the same USAC racing license application Floyd agreed to.

Stare Decisis?

Probably not...

[MORE]


Said CyclingNews,

American mountain bike racer Susan Haywood was awarded over $300,000 in damages by a US Federal Judge on Thursday for being unfairly being removed from the USA Olympic team in 2004.

We've gotten the relevant documents from the case and put them in the archive:

• Complaint
• Memo of supporting law
• Answer
• Response to Memo of supporting law
• Ruling

Stare decisis being the principle of following precedent of prior decisions, the question is always whether this case can be distinguished from that case, so the precedent of that case doesn't apply.

It doesn't look like USACycling fought this very hard, and the facts seem very different from Landis, so it's hard to say it sets any relevant precedent for the Landis federal case.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 39

Here and There
The LA Times reports Catlin may be close to a urine test for HgH

On 13-Nov, Velonews notices ACE has folded shop.

Rant ponders, after reading a NY Times piece, the possibility that Floyd Landis might have gotten a fairer shake in a regular courtroom.

Racejunkie wonders why, if he's so afraid of French cycling fans, Lance A. would poke them with a stick. And hey Tom, slow down!!

Life on Two Wheels says Floyd has been training lots lately, and behind an BMW motorcycle no less.

Floyd was looking really smooth and good. I am stoked to see him back out training, and can't wait to see him race this next season. The bad news for the big teams in the country is that, if they hope to win any stage races this year they better sign some better racers. I can tell you right now Floyd is going to destroy people next year domestically. I would pick him to win just about any stage race in the country. Time to really start training.

The USADA reply in the Landis Federal case ought to arrive this week, so watch the docket and give us a holler if you see it before we do. (A copy would be nice too!) Yes, you need a PACER login to see the docket.

Answering an unrelated question, TBV is mending slowly, still with sore ribs that ruffle sleep and revealed elbow tenderness. Starting stationary training, and sans good bike while lawyers start settlement talk. It left lots of time for election fretting.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 38

ESPN/Bonnie Ford confirm that ACE is folding, leaving Garmin, Columbia, and BMC hung out to dry. One partial cause may have been the exit of Paul Scott from ACE, following his help with the Landis defense. We guess Scott Analytics, used by Rock, is still operating -- but if Scott was blacklisted for helping Landis, then he might still not be acceptable for these teams.

Racejunkie catches us up on all the latest from the world of cycling including a few choice words on Bijarne Riis, and a mention on Floyd Landis' new team.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 37

Cycling Fans Anonymous has interesting news. In a 30-Oct post, it suggests ACE may be folding.

On 1-Nov, CFA points us to a forthcoming book, "The Ethics of Doping and Anti-Doping". This is supposed to be out in May, at 185 pages for $38.00 (paperback) and $140[!!!] (hardcover).


US Citizens,

Don't forget to vote tomorrow!

Rant also exhorts us all to vote today. It's a right many have fought and died for in the past. Using this privilege is the least we can do to honor those many and participate in the present.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 36

Here and There
BikingBis notes the return of Floyd Landis to the pro peloton on the OUCH (Occupational Urgent Care and Health Sports Medical Center) Team and wonders if he will suffer the same way Tyler Hamilton did when he first made his comeback.

EuroPeloton writes about the "comebacks" of Floyd Landis, Ivan Basso, and Lance Armstrong noting, among other things, that at the very least there will be an increase in publicity for cycling.

BikeWorldNews notes Landis' OUCH comeback.

ServiceCourse notes the comeback too, with a snarky picture.

Liz brought back the ever popular Phonak kit this Halloween.

Critical Section had quite a blogging year, and in this entry welcomes Floyd Landis back to the peloton.

CyclingNews has some letters about life bans on first offenses.

Full Post with Comments...