Feds: Get your paperwork in order

[UPDATE: See the Consolidated Docket]

In developments on Landis v USADA, CV 08-06330 PA (CWx), Pacer reports a few orders, not good for Landis, but not fatal either. The main issue is not following the local rules for long briefs, so some things have been stricken pending update to correct form.

You don't want to do this too often to avoid annoying the Judge.

Here's the current docket pulled from Pacer. The links won't work unless you have an account.

Date Filed	#	Docket Text
09/25/2008	1	MOTION to Vacate Arbitration Award ; Demand for Jury Trial [FILING FEE: $350 PAID.], filed by Petitioner Floyd Landis. Motion set for hearing on 11/3/2008 at 01:30 PM before Judge Percy Anderson. (et) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/1/2008: # 1 Summons, Civil Cover Sheet & Notice of Assignment) (ds). ** STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD PURSUANT TO ORDER OF 10/3/2008 14 ** Modified on 10/6/2008 (gk). (Entered: 10/01/2008)
09/25/2008	2	MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES in Support of MOTION to Vacate Arbitration Award 1 filed by Petitioner Floyd Landis. (et) (ds). (Entered: 10/01/2008)
09/25/2008	3	DECLARATION of SETH DAVIDSON in support MOTION to Vacate Arbitration Award 1 filed by Petitioner Floyd Landis. (et) (ds). (Entered: 10/01/2008)
09/25/2008	4	NOTICE OF LODGING Exhibit 1-59 in Landis vs. USADA filed by Petitioner Floyd Landis. (et) (ds). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2008: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4) (ds). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2008: # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6a, # 7 Exhibit 6b) (ds). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2008: # 8 Exhibit 7) (ds). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2008: # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9a, # 11 Exhibit 9b, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11) (ds). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2008: # 16 Exhibit 12, Part 1, # 17 Exhibit 12, Part 2, # 18 Exhibit 12, Part 3, # 19 Exhibit 12, Part 4, # 20 Exhibit 12, Part 5, # 21 Exhibit 12, Part 6) (ds). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2008: # 22 Exhibit 13, # 23 Exhibit 14, # 24 Exhibit 15, # 25 Exhibit 16, # 26 Exhibit 17, # 27 Exhibit 18, # 28 Exhibit 19, # 29 Exhibit 20) (ds). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2008: # 30 Exhibit 21a, # 31 Exhibit 21b, # 32 Exhibit 22, # 33 Exhibit 23, # 34 Exhibit 24, # 35 Exhibit 25, # 36 Exhibit 26, # 37 Exhibit 27, # 38 Exhibit 28, # 39 Exhibit 29, # 40 Exhibit 30) (ds). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2008: # 41 Exhibit 31, # 42 Exhibit 32, # 43 Exhibit 33, # 44 Exhibit 34, # 45 Exhibit 35, # 46 Exhibit 36) (ds). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2008: # 47 Exhibit 37, # 48 Exhibit 38, # 49 Exhibit 39, # 50 Exhibit 40, # 51 Exhibit 41, # 52 Exhibit 42, # 53 Exhibit 43, # 54 Exhibit 44, # 55 Exhibit 45, # 56 Exhibit 46, # 57 Exhibit 47, # 58 Exhibit 48, # 59 Exhibit 49, # 60 Exhibit 50) (ds). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2008: # 61 Exhibit 51, # 62 Exhibit 52, # 63 Exhibit 53, Part 1, # 64 Exhibit 53, Part 2, # 65 Exhibit 53, Part 3) (ds). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2008: # 66 Exhibit 54, # 67 Exhibit 55, # 68 Exhibit 56, # 69 Exhibit 57, # 70 Exhibit 58, # 71 Exhibit 59) (ds). ** STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD PURSUANT TO ORDER OF 10/3/2008 14 ** Modified on 10/6/2008 (gk). (Entered: 10/01/2008)
09/25/2008	5	CERTIFICATION AS TO Interested Parties filed by Petitioner Floyd Landis. (et) (ds). (Entered: 10/01/2008)
09/25/2008	6	NOTICE TO PARTIES OF ADR PILOT PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
09/25/2008	7	APPLICATION for attorney KAY GUNDERSON REEVES to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV FEE PAID.) filed by Petitioner Floyd Landis. Lodged Order. (et) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
10/02/2008	11	STANDING ORDER issued by Judge Percy Anderson. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THE CASE AND DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES. This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Percy Anderson. Both theCourt and the attorneys bear responsibility for the progress of litigation in the Federal Courts. To secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, Fed. R.Civ. P. 1, all counsel are ordered to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Central District of California. (See order for details) (kpa) (Entered: 10/06/2008) Free copy from the archive.
10/03/2008	8	Amendment to MOTION to Vacate 1 filed by Petitioner Floyd Landis. (Worthington, Roger) ** STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD PURSUANT TO ORDER OF 10/3/2008 14 ** Modified on 10/6/2008 (gk). (Entered: 10/03/2008) Free copy from the archive.
10/03/2008	9	NOTICE OF LODGING filed Exhibit 60 re Notice of Lodging,,,,,,,, 4 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Number 60)(Worthington, Roger) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
10/03/2008	10	NOTICE OF LODGING filed Proposed Order Granting Amended Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award re Amendment (Motion related) 8 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Amended Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award)(Worthington, Roger) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
10/03/2008	12	ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson Granting APPLICATION for attorney KAY GUNDERSON REEVES to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (PHV FEE PAID.) 7 Worthington is designated as local counsel. Fee PAID. (kpa) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
10/03/2008	14	ORDER STRIKING FILED DOCUMENTS FROM THE RECORD by Judge Percy Anderson: The documents listed below were improperly filed for the following reasons: Memorandum/brief exceeds 25 pages, Local Rule 11-6; Memorandum/brief exceeding 10 pages shall be accompanied by an indexed table of contents, Local Rule 11-8; Paper exhibit shall be numbered at the bottom of each page consecutively to the principal document, Local Rule 11-5.2; therefore, the following document(s) shall be stricken from the record and shall not be considered by the Court: Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award filed 9/25/2008 1 , Notice of Lodging of Exhibits 1-59 filed 9/25/2008 4 Amended Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award filed 10/3/2008 8 . (gk) (Entered: 10/06/2008) Free copy from the Archive.
10/06/2008	13	NOTICE Notice of Service of Standing Order filed by petitioner Floyd Landis. (Worthington, Roger) (Entered: 10/06/2008)

What seems relevant we'll get and copy to the archive:

Item 8, (subsequently stricken amended complaint - shorter than the original);
Item 11, Standing Order;
Item 14, Order striking for form problems.

We'll skip #13.

So as of this minute, there's a case, but no official complaint in the record. Expect that to change soon enough.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 29

Here and There
Rant does a "roundup" of his own today, and there's LOTS to talk about. He covers everything from the new Landis lawsuit to the never ending "joy" that is OP.

There are a number of reports (velonews, AP) the IOC is going to retest around 5000 Beijing samples for CERA. We find it amazingly convenient this is not happening when it would affect television ratings.


Velo Vortmax calls for the abolition of the WADA/USADA arbitration "farce":

It is time to do away with the Olympic Committee arbitration model. A prosecution and arbitration hearing within a specific country is marginal. But appeals of awards should be done in National Federal Courts where the athlete resides, not in a Court of Arbitration of Sport in Switzerland. This would stop a "second arbitration" that is done from scratch, with a new set of testimony and arbitrary rules. This would stop jurisdictional questions between countries if an athlete appeals a CAS award to a court of law. Example: Where is the "seat", the United States or Switzerland. Unnecessary conflict of interest of CAS arbitrators would also be avoided.

Most important of all the blackmail that USA Cycling and the International Olympic Committee uses to coerce athletes into signing away their legal rights as a condition to participate in athletic contests under dubious contractual agreements would cease.

WADAwatch brings up the largely "ignored" Vrijman Report in response to last week's call by Pierre Bordry that Lance Armstrong "come clean", as it were, about his alleged 1999 "positives" for PED use which were leaked by L'Equipe in 2005.

Outside Blog wonders if it's 2006 all over again. Holy Cow we hope not!!!

Beth Bikes met Floyd Landis last week at nationals and said he politely listened to her rattle on about nothing.

Full Post with Comments...

Straubel on Arbitration

In a comment to our discussion of Landis v USADA, Larry points us again to a Straubel review article.

As to whether this case can be decided under the FAA, I think it’s a close question. The discussion here between M and DR is a good one. You can also look at the Straubel article, in particular at footnote 113 (page 1221), and pages 1224-25 and 1250-53. I think that a good argument can be made either way, but for practical reasons I think that the courts will opt against FAA application. If the U.S. courts can vacate a CAS decision using the reach of the FAA, then this opens the door for every CAS decision to be litigated on a country-by-country basis, ultimately leaving the parties subject to a patchwork of different rulings. Once upon a time, we were concerned that the French authorities would ignore a CAS ruling in Landis’ favor – this same kind of concern argues against a U.S. court ignoring a CAS ruling against Landis.

Regarding the substance of the Landis case: I think the heart of the Landis case is the potential for bias inherent in a system that allows arbitrators to also represent parties before the CAS. Prof. Straubel made the same point in his article (see pp. 1235-36).

What do these sections say?

footnote 113 (page 1221),

113. Many questions remain about CAS-administered arbitrations held in the U.S. as is permitted by Rule 49A. The first question is whether the arbitration would be considered an initial arbitration and governed by the rules of the Ordinary Arbitration Division, or whether it would be considered an appeal and governed by the rules of the Appeals Division. The second question is—since the hearing must be held in the United States—whether Swiss or United States public law and choice of law rules would apply. For example, while Rule 57 states that the CAS decision “shall be final and binding and shall not be subject to further review or appeal except as permitted by the Swiss Federal Judicial Organization Act or the Swiss Statute on Private International Law,” because the hearing is being held in the United States, it might also be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). CAS CODE, supra note 8, at R57. Application of the FAA would occur under the following reasoning. First, the Act applies to “a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising.” 9 U.S.C. § 2 (2000). Second, the term “involving commerce” has been equated to Congress’s power to regulate under the commerce clause. See Snyder v. Smith, 736 F. 2d 409, 418 (7th Cir. 1984) (interpreting the “involving commerce” requirement not as a limitation but a qualification suggesting that Congress intended the FAA to apply to all contracts that it constitutionally could regulate), overruled on other grounds by Felen v. Andreas, 134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir.1998). Finally, the Supreme Court found, in Flood v. Kuhn, that professional baseball is a business which engages in interstate commerce. Therefore, if Olympic Movement sports are considered now similar to professional baseball, the arbitration of disputes arising out of Olympic movement sports involves interstate commerce and is therefore “commercial.” Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 282-83 (1972).

pages 1224-25:

Because the AAA-CAS proceedings are initial hearings, decisions can be appealed to the European CAS.138 However, that appellate hearing must be held in the United States,139 which raises interesting questions of the law that might govern the hearing. 140 Finally,according to Rule 49(a) of the Supplementary Procedures, the decision of the European CAS is final and may only be challenged as is permitted by the Swiss Federal Judicial Organization Act or the Swiss Statute on Private International Law.141 However, the Federal Arbitration Act may be applicable despite the limitations contained in Rule 49(A).142

1250-53

2. The Application of the Swiss Statute on Private International Law to AAA-CAS Proceedings

The Code designates Lausanne, Switzerland as CAS’s seat.278 The purpose and result of selecting a “seat” for all CAS arbitrations is to pick a municipal law to test and ultimately validate the legitimacy of the CAS arbitration process. Selecting the law to govern the arbitration (les arbitri),279 as opposed to the law governing the merits of the dispute, confers nationality upon CAS awards for purposes of enforcement under the New York Convention280 and creates confidence in the system and ensures basic fairness within Swiss law. All international arbitrations, defined as an arbitration involving at least one non-Swiss citizen, must satisfy the requirements of the Swiss Statue on Private International Law.281

CAS and its arbitration process have been tested in admittedly limited circumstances, under the Statute on Private International Law. In all challenges to CAS, the Swiss Federal Tribunal has found CAS and its process impartial and fair.282 However, because these challenges came from arbitrations physically held within Switzerland, there is some question of whether the concept of a “seat” designation will have extraterritorial application to arbitrations physically held outside of Switzerland. While the Swiss Federal Tribunal has accepted the concept of a split between the physical location of an arbitration hearing and the legal location or “seat” of the arbitration hearing, the important question of whether foreign courts (such as the courts of the United States) will accept the “seat” doctrine remains.283

This question of extraterritoriality has gained increasing import with the advent of “ad hoc,” on-location CAS tribunals. Starting with the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games, special CAS ad hoc tribunals have been established at the Olympic Games to hear disputes arising during the Olympic Games. All of those ad hoc tribunals have designated their “seat” as Lausanne, Switzerland. It can be argued that the ad hoc tribunals are legally different, for purposes of analyzing the “seat” question, from the permanent tribunals in Switzerland and the decentralized CAS tribunals such as AAA-CAS. In fact, a challenge of the Sydney Olympics ad hoc tribunal framed an analysis that could apply to determining whether AAA-CAS’s “seat” is Lausanne, Switzerland. 284 In Raguz v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal found that the selection of a “seat” was at its essence a contractual choice of law that would be upheld as long as it did not violate Australian public law and policy. 285 Since it did not violate Australian law and the parties had contractually agreed to Lausanne as the seat of the arbitration, the Court found that it did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the enforcement of the contract choice of Lausanne as the seat of the arbitration. 286

The analysis used by the Australian Court in Raguz could very conceivably be followed by a United States Court hearing a challenge to the selection of Lausanne as the seat of AAA-CAS arbitrations. In the court’s analysis, the first step would be to determine if an athlete in an AAA-CAS hearing had agreed to the selection of Lausanne. Such an agreement would have to rest on a series of interlocking contracts.287 The first contract would be the athlete’s membership in the governing NGB and IF. The second contract would be the agreement or statutorily required connection between the NGB and the USOC. The third contract would be the contract between the USOC (or possibly IF) and CAS to decide the disputes. The fourth contract, or connection, would be that the North American Decentralized Office of CAS is part of a larger CAS structure governed by the Code of Sport-relatedArbitration. 288 Assuming the court finds that there has been a contractual choice, the next question is whether it would honor this choice of law agreement.

In the United States, a contract choice of law clause is evaluated under the rubric initially established in Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore.289 Under the Bremen test, a choice of law clause will be honored unless it is unreasonable. A clause can be unreasonable if it was the result of fraud, undue influence, overweening bargaining power, or will result in the breach of an important public policy found in mandatory public law.290 Using the Bremen test in the case of selecting Lausanne as the seat of arbitration, the strongest arguments for declaring the clause unreasonable would be that it was the result of overweening bargaining power291 and that it violates public policy found in the Federal Arbitration Act or Amateur Sports Act. Assuming for the sake of argument that the clause was not the result of overweening bargaining power, the effect of the Federal Arbitration Act and Amateur Sports Act should be briefly examined.

The Federal Arbitration Act, in section ten, lists a series of grounds upon which an arbitration award may be set aside.292 The intent of Congress, in drafting section ten, was to ensure an impartial arbitration process.293 Similarly, the Amateur Sports Act, in sections 220509 and 220529, attempts to ensure an impartial arbitration process to protect athletes’ rights.294 Considering the goal of both Acts to ensure an impartial arbitration process, it is fair to characterize these as laws expressing public policy concerns of Congress.295 As expressions of important public policy concerns, the question becomes whether Swiss law, particularly the Statute on Private International Law, provides the same protections as the Federal Arbitration Act and the Amateur Sports Act provide. A reading of the decision by the Swiss Federal Tribunal in A. & B. v. International Olympic Committee296 suggests that the Statute on Private International Law is generous in its protections and would likely satisfy the test employed in Bonny v. Society of Lloyd’s.297 Thus, the selection of Lausanne as the seat would likely be upheld.

On bias: pp. 1235-36.

Despite the attempt to create a diversified master list of arbitrators, as is described above, there are concerns that the list either contains too many—or is dominated by—potentially biased arbitrators. While the Swiss Federal Tribunal addressed this claim and dismissed it, the Tribunal focused on the influence of the IOC alone and not the collective influence of the governing bodies of the Olympic family. 214 The Olympic governing bodies together nominate three-fifths of the master list. Then, the remaining two-fifths of the arbitrators, though theoretically from the outside the Olympic Movement, are identified and approved by an ICAS dominated by members appointed by the Olympic family. It can be argued, therefore, that all of the arbitrators come from, have ties to, or owe their presence on the master list of arbitrators to the Olympic family. Further, the list can and does include arbitrators who have and continue to represent parties before the CAS, including governing bodies, an arrangement that can create a conflict of interest or the appearance of a lack of independence. Finally, as a closed list, even though the list consisted at one time of over 180 persons, the selection of experienced and well-qualified arbitrators is limited to a small group of frequently used arbitrators.

Do these concerns rise to the level of “circumstances [that would] produce the appearance of prejudice and cast doubt over [a] judge’s impartiality” and can the number of potentially biased arbitrators populating the master list be reduced? Yes, the inclusion of arbitrators that continue to represent parties before the CAS does create an appearance of doubt of impartiality, and there are steps that can be taken to reduce the number of potentially biased arbitrators. Further, the impact of the remaining potentially biased arbitrators can be reduced by expanding the source of arbitrator nominations.

Just as it may be a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct for a judge to hear a case being argued by a government agency that formerly employed him,215 it creates the appearance of a conflict of interest when an attorney represents an athlete or a governing body and then serves as an arbitrator in a disciplinary case. This is particularly so when the collective interest of the Olympic Movement is then called into question by an athlete, such as in doping cases.216 The easiest way to prevent this appearance of impropriety is to not appoint arbitrators to the master list that represent parties, including athletes, before the CAS. This will, of course, reduce the number of available experienced arbitrators. This shortage will be temporary, however,217 and CAS arbitrators’ resultant improved legitimacy would be worth the temporary shortage of experienced arbitrators.

Full Post with Comments...

About conflicts

In the long-running and excellent discussion about the legal merits of the Landis Federal Filing, we have a recent comment by DR pointing to what he thinks is Landis' best claim:

In my view his strongest argument is based upon the failure of the arbitrator he chose to disclose potential conflicts.

See if you can wade through this:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0555224P.pdf

Or if that puts you to sleep, just jump to the last couple of paragraphs.

Those last few paragraphs say,

[9] Under these circumstances, Immerman had a duty when he accepted the new job at Yari Film Group to investigate the possible conflicts that might arise from his new employment. However, even though Immerman breached his duty to investigate, vacatur is only appropriate if the conflict left undis-closed was real, see Schmitz, 20 F.3d at 1049, and “not trivial.” ANR Coal Co., Inc., 173 F.3d at 499 n.4. Understandably, courts have rejected claims of evident partiality based on long past, attenuated, or insubstantial connections between a party and an arbitrator. See, e.g., Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 476 F.3d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (collecting cases). As Justice White explained in his concurrence in Commonwealth Coatings, it would be unrealistic to expect an arbitrator to “provide the parties with his complete and unexpurgated business biography.” Commonwealth Coatings, 393 U.S. at 151 (White, J., concurring).

[10] The conflict alleged by Nippon Herald is real and nontrivial. “The Night Watchman” negotiation was not distant in time, but rather ongoing during the arbitration. Nor was the connection between Yari Film Group and New Regency attenuated. Even if Milchan was not directly representing New Regency in the negotiations, she had substantial ties to the company as an executive of the company and the daughter of its principal owner and chief executive officer. Although the record does not allow us to place a dollar value on “The Night Watchman,” taking into account the high-profile nature of the film project itself, and the size of Yari Film Group’s business, we cannot conclude that the negotiation was unimportant to Yari Film Group.

[11] Under these circumstances, we hold that Immerman had a duty, when he accepted the new job at Yari Film Group during the arbitration, to investigate the possible conflicts that might arise from his new employment. We hold further, in light of that duty, that Immerman’s failure to disclose facts that show a reasonable impression of partiality is sufficient to support vacatur, notwithstanding the lack of evidence of his actual knowledge of those facts.

While we are cognizant of the public interest in efficient and final arbitration, we believe that a rule encouraging “arbitrators [to] err on the side of disclosure” is consistent with that interest. Id. at 152. As Justice White explained in Commonwealth Coatings, the “arbitration process functions best” where early and full arbitrator disclosure fosters “an amicable and trusting atmosphere” conducive to “voluntary compliance with the decree.” Id. at 151.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court did not err in vacating the arbitration award on the ground of evident partiality.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 28

Floyd Landis riding with the Flagstaff Biking Organization yesterday. The photo is from the FBO website.

Here and There
Flagstaff Biking Organization and others rode with Floyd Landis yesterday in a Smith and Nephew sponsored event.

Drunkcyclist provides the "snark'o'the week," which illustrates not everyone was happy to see Floyd come to Flagstaff yesterday. Could be worse, at least they spelled his name right on the road.

At Rant the conversation over the federal lawsuit filed last week by Floyd Landis continues.

Racejunkie advises "poor" Floyd Landis to think twice before taking on the forces at WADA. She thinks it's not the place to look for justice or honor.

Thought OP was finally dead? Think again. Here's the story in VeloNews.

The Boulder Report writes about Frank Schleck this morning and wonders if we should start leaving the past IN the past:

Frank Schleck probably wanted to go clear of the past; like everyone in a similar position, he probably hoped he would never be called out. He was, but he shouldn't have to pay for everyone else's sins anymore than (Ivan) Basso did, or Floyd Landis...

Poochiew reviews "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" which came out on DVD this past week. Note the "cast" list where Floyd "Landise's' name isn't spelled correctly. And you thought we were nitpicking above about spelling.

Pommi made it to Mt Diablo today, as a volunteer. The pictures he provides are lovely, but unfortunately there were some accidents on the mountain decent today. It's been a bad stretch for cyclists lately one way or another.

On a happier note, Bill Hue and wife, Laura Challoner were able to complete the Diablo Challenge as guests of the homebound TBV and Mrs. TBV. Bill had a PR for the ride (Average P0wer, Power over 1 hour, Power to weight ratio) , not just on the Challenge but all-time for any ride. Laura was kind enough to ride along with Bill until the very end (15% at least!).

Here are their stats:

647 (Out of 888 riders) Laura Challoner 4/18 F 50-59 1:25:48.1 7.55 MPH

649 (Out of 888 riders) Bill Hue 109/150 M 50-59 1:26:03.5 7.53MPH

Not bad for a couple of flatlanders who traveled to California to do their first uphill Time Trial and visit TBV.

And, way cool for Bill, who was initially advised last September to stop bike riding due to health concerns and who has worked hard in consultation with his cardiac physician, exercise physiologist and CTS training to use the bike as part of a coordinated plan to good health.

Official results are Bill #106/150 M 50-59; Laura #4/18 F 50-59, needing a 1:15:27 for a step on the podium.

TBV notes that looking at his power data in WKO+, Bill's peak 20:00 @ 259 was at the start, while his peak 30:00@ 247 ended at the summit, finishing with the peak 2:00 at 299w. That's a sign of good pacing, and finishing strong.

Full Post with Comments...

Corruption and Incompetency?

In the irregular report, we found this temptation:

The sections in the brief that show almost outright corruption and egregious incompetency and Rules violations are on pages 24-26, 32-33, and 61-64.

Inquiring minds will want to know what they say. First, mid page 24:

The CAS Case List also reveals the many occasions on which Mr. Young (USADA’s lawyer), has served on CAS arbitration panels before which Mr. Paulsson appeared for the IOC. The list confirms that during 1994-2003, Mr. Young served as a CAS arbitrator eleven times, and in six of these proceedings,

Page 25:

Mr. Paulsson appeared before him representing the IOC. This confirms that Mr. Young sat in judgment of Mr. Paulsson’s client on more than half of the occasions in which he was appointed as a CAS arbitrator, while Mr. Paulsson appeared before Mr. Young more than half of the times that he appeared before CAS representing the IOC.

Mr. Landis had no way of knowing all of the above-recited facts when he selected Mr. Paulsson to serve as arbitrator on his CAS appeal panel in November, 2007. Mr. Landis also did not know that in November, 2007, Mr. Paulsson was actively representing the IOC in three high-stakes cases pending before a CAS panel to which Mr. Rivkin (the USADA-selected arbitrator) had been appointed president. Ex. 12, CAS Case Law, 2007/A/1286, Johannes Eder v. IOC; 2007/A/1288, Martin Tauber v/IOC; 2007/A/1289, Jurgen Pinter v/IOC (decided January 4, 2008). Upon information and belief, the stakes were particularly high for Mr. Paulsson and his client in these cases because they were the first in which the IOC had disqualified athletes for anti-doping violations in the absence of a positive test, and the first cases in which the IOC sought a life-time ban.

Although no available evidence indicates that Mr. Paulsson or Mr. Rivkin

Page 26:

acted improperly, a clear appearance of bias exists. CAS Rule R59 gave Mr. Rivkin the sole power to decide the fate of Mr. Paulsson’s client, so persuading Mr. Rivkin was clearly crucial to Mr. Paulsson’s success in these cases. The appointment of both Mr. Paulsson and Mr. Rivkin to the Landis appeal panel presented a timely opportunity for Mr. Paulsson to discuss the facts of his high-profile IOC cases with Mr. Rivkin. It also created an unfortunate incentive to trade votes, with Mr. Paulsson agreeing to exchange a vote on the Landis appeal for favorable treatment from Mr. Rivkin in the cases of the three Austrians.

---

Page 31:

... However, the record facts in this case do provide a basis for concluding that the Panel deferred to

Page 32:

Panel deferred to fellow CAS arbitrator, Mr. Young, acts that could be attributable to the presence of actual bias. Specifically, the panel treated Mr. Young’s statements as evidence on at least three occasions, deference afforded no other lawyer in the case.

First, as described below in greater detail [see pages 39-43], the panel accepted Mr. Young’s statements as evidence in support of its decision to impose $100,000 in “costs” against Mr. Landis. At the time the evidentiary hearing closed, there was no record evidence on the amount or reasonableness of any of USADA’s litigation expenses, nor was the issue of costs submitted to the Panel for decision. Ex. 1, CAS Decision at 19. However, USADA’s post-hearing brief contained Mr. Young’s unsworn statements describing the extent and reasonableness of some of USADA’s costs, statements the Panel relied upon in assessing the $100,000 penalty against Mr. Landis.

Second, as again argued in detail below [see pages 50-66] the panel accepted Mr. Young’s unsupported statement to resolve a key issue relating to LNDD’s accreditation. On appeal, Mr. Landis challenged LNDD’s accreditation to perform the CIR method, arguing that the accreditation documents put in evidence by USADA confirmed that LNDD was only accredited to conduct the CIR test with a 20% measurement of uncertainty, not the 0.8‰ uncertainty

Page 33:

measurement it actually used, and that had the 20% measurement of uncertainty been used, his results could not have been declared positive. Apparently concerned that Mr. Landis was correct about the LNDD’s accreditation status, the Panel sidestepped the issue by relying on a statement made by Mr. Young in a footnote to his post-submission brief, a statement making the unsupported (and incorrect) assertion that had the 20% measurement of uncertainty been applied, Mr. Landis’s sample results would still have been positive. Ex. 1, CAS Decision at ¶48, Ex. 22 , Appellee’s Post-Submission Brief, at 8, footnote 7.

Finally, as also argued in detail below [see pages 76-84], the panel accepted Mr. Young’s “common sense” explanation to reconcile important inconsistencies between a document USADA relied heavily upon–a gas chromatography column maintenance log (Exhibit T142)--and the sworn testimony of USADA’s own witness, the LNDD technician who was supposed to have actually made the entries on Exhibit T142.

---

Page 61:

The Panel compounded this error by relieving USADA of its burden of proof. Apparently concluding that if it was wrong about the accreditation question, WADA Code, Art. 3.2 would operate to shift the burden to USADA to prove that the LNDD’s failure to apply the 20% uncertainty did not cause the positive result, the Panel went on to draw just such a conclusion on USADA’s behalf : “even applying a 20% uncertainty, the delta-delta value would still be over 3.0%, and the Appellant’s test would still be positive.” Ex. 1 ,CAS Decision, ¶48. Although USADA should have borne a heavy burden to prove this fact to the “comfortable satisfaction” of the Panel, see Ex. 29, WADA Code at 3.1, 3.2, the Panel appears to have done USADA’s work for it without benefit of evidence, stating its conclusion without a shadow of a reference to the record. In doing so, the Panel manifestly disregarded the applicable law by relieving USADA of its burden (a burden the panel clearly acknowledged and understood see CAS Decision, ¶¶29-33), and by making a decision not based upon any evidence tendered by any party. Not one of USADA’s witnesses offered this testimony, nor did any document include such a statement.

It is not surprising that USADA’s witnesses wouldn’t testify to the conclusion the Panel reached–it is patently incorrect. The 20% is a measurement

Page 62:

uncertainty assigned to bound the uncertainties created by inevitable measurement error. As such, it is applied to LNDD’s measured isotopic values–the “delta” value-- not the “delta-delta” value, which is simply a subtraction value the lab derives by subtracting the value it measured for an endogenous reference compound from the value it measured for the testosterone metabolite of interest.

[note omitted]

Page 63:

In fact, the statement that Mr. Landis’s sample would still have been positive even if a 20% uncertainty measurement had been applied is contained in only one place–a footnote to USADA’s post-hearing brief written by its lawyer. Ex. 22, USADA’s Post-Hearing Brief at 8, footnote 7. Though this footnote provides a reference to ¶26 of Dr. Christianne Ayotte’s witness declaration, her declaration contains no interpretation or application of the 20% measurement uncertainty. Ex. 35, Witness Declaration of Dr. Christianne Ayotte, March 7, 2008. Instead, the fuzzy math can be credited to the brief’s author, Richard Young, USADA’s lawyer and fellow-CAS arbitrator. Had Mr. Landis been permitted a right of reply, he could have pointed out that the statement was both unsupported and incorrect, but just as the Panel’s limitations on the post-hearing briefs denied him a right to reply to Mr. Young’s assertions about litigation costs, it also prohibited him from

Page 64:

him from presenting any reply to footnote 7. Ex. 2, Tr. 1502:17-23, 1503:23-25. This is yet another example of the deference that the CAS panel afforded to Mr.Young, suggesting the existence of actual bias.

In reaching the conclusion that Mr. Landis’s test would still have been positive no matter what measurement uncertainty was applied, the Panel also misapplied the burden of proof in at least two ways, manifestly disregarding the law it acknowledged and correctly articulated at the outset of it decision. Ex. 1, CAS Decision, ¶¶28-33. First, the Panel imposed upon Mr. Landis the burden of disproving accreditation, a burden he does not bear under the Code. Having made this mistake, the Panel then concluded that Mr. Landis was obligated to present his proof in his appeal brief, and that his “failure” to do so justified the decision to admit the late-produced letter of Mr. LeGuy. Ex. 1, CAS Decision at 11, n. 23. But proving or disproving accreditation was not part of Mr. Landis’s burden under the Code, it was USADA’s. Ex. 29, WADA Code, Art. 3.1, 3.2; Ex. 12, CAS Case Law, Hamilton at ¶¶47-54. Once USADA made clear that it would rely upon
accreditation–as it did in its own appeal brief, filed months after Mr. Landis’s –USADA had the burden of establishing the fact of accreditation, which it did on January 31, 2008 by submitting the COFRAC audit documents in its Exhibit T026.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 27

Here and There
Rant presents a discussion about Floyd Landis' recently filed Federal lawsuit between Judge Bill Hue and "DirtRoadie". A must read for those into the case.

Basil Chesterton Sinclair got Greg LeMond to consent to an interview for his blog after LeMond's "appearance" at an Interbike Lance Armsrong news conference last week. The uncut transcript is posted with some comment about a "fearful" Floyd Landis:

Even Floyd Landis, after what he did to me last year, I have empathy for him. I don’t believe he’s a bad person. I feel he acted out of fear, most likely threatened like a lot of people have been and had to go one way. You could tell just by his actions. And you read that in Tyler Hamilton’s deal

Racejunkie writes about a bunch of recent cycling stories that have little to do with actual competition, but lots to do with court action and doping cases, past and present.

WADAwatch is back from his summer hiatus and writing about the ASO among other tidbits. Welcome back Ww.

The Ig Nobel prizes are out, and

the medicine prize was awarded to a team at Duke University in North Carolina who showed that high-priced placebos work better than cheap fake medicine.

This is known by all the doping witch-doctors. Always choose brand name Obecalp™!

At rec.bicycles.racing, one of Landis' harshest critics seems to have had a minor paradigm shift, after having run down the federal suit since hearing of its filing:

Okay, I read Floyd's filing. These are my conclusions:

1.) U.S. federal court probably does have jurisdiction.

2.) U.S. federal court still might not want get involved though because it would involve nullifying the contract Floyd signed with the UCI that specifically waived any right to appeal (Chapter 14, Rules 289-291) and if they were to appeal, it should still probably be done in Switzerland, where BOTH PARTIES agreed it would be done.

3.) CAS is an extremely corrupt system and the lawyers in the CAS pool are basically white-collar criminals running their own court syndicate where one hand washes the other. It's a pay-to-play system. But I already knew that years ago because the IOC controls CAS and WADA and it's only about protecting their money interests and TV image with sponsors. It has little to do with justice for athletes.

The sections in the brief that show almost outright corruption and egregious incompetency and Rules violations are on pages 24-26, 32-33, and 61-64.

4.) Floyd and his fellow cyclists are still idiots for knowing all this and still agreeing to take out a license with the UCI and thereby agreeing to be subjected to CAS oversight. So I will not be donating to his defense in the near future since he keeps going back to shack up with his abuser - the UCI and CAS.

5. Cyclists should unionize or they will continue to get beatings like some kind of trailer park meth-head.

Velo Vortmax writes about the return of Lance and about Floyd Landis' lawsuit filed in the federal courts last week. VV has some good questions and also wonders just what would happen if the federal courts somehow ruled in Floyd's favor.

Full Post with Comments...

Case 08-06330 now on Pacer

Update: See our Consolidated Docket.

The main access page appears to be at CM ECF

The case is filed as "Floyd Landis v. United States Anti-Doping Agency", a "Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award".

Landis' attorneys of record are Kay Gunderson Reeves, of Dallas TX, who has been involved in previous rounds, and Roger G Worthington, who has made his major mark in Mesothelioma (absestos) litigation.

The motion is 108 pages for $2.40, and we've placed it in the archive.

The points and authorities are nine pages for $0.72.

Declaration by Seth Davidson, 3 pages for $0.24.

Notice of lodging and exhibits 1..59 look like around 2000 pages, and that's beyond our scope from the hospital bed.

Now we can begin a real discussion.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 26

Here and There
Tenacious T, competing at the Track Nationals, saw Landis among the few spectators on day 1 and got a picture.

awesome photo by Tenacious T

Pez says the Landis-linked formerly-HealthNet team will be on Kuota's next year. The Italian designed/Taiwan (Martec) manufactured bikes were #2 at the Kona 2007 triathlon, and have high bling quotient. Not much high-end pro visibility yet, their largest previous sponsorship being of Agritubel. Kuota doesn't appear to be a step down from the Cannondale's the team had been riding, with good road and TT offerings.

Rant writes of two recent "bouncebacks", the "lucky" TBV's and Floyd Landis'. According to Rant Landis may have to redefine "vindication" for himself by the elimination of that $100,000 fine. At this point that would probably go a long way. Both surely qualify as "sagas". Well, maybe not TBV's. There are only so many stanzas can you get out of, "Car and bike collided / bike and rider lost."

Skatey-mark thinks Floyd Landis might need to take his "case" to the Swiss courts since he might not find satisfaction here. Let's wait for some real information before leaping to conclusions.



Sports by Joe notes the return of "Crazy Floyd Landis". Nope, cycling is certainly NOT boring.

Ryan met and socialized with Floyd Landis recently, but didn't say if he had enjoyed himself. How could you not?

An emailer sent some pictures from last weekend's "Save a Limb" ride with Landis and Bob Roll.

Landis looks thin behind those Elvis shades.

Bobke always has a few words to say.
Holding the mike and the hat might have been constraining.

Outside All Day, working with the Ride Clean Team, is still convinced Landis didn't do it.

When it's out of you, it's beautiful Dept.

After waiting much of the day to get my CT scan done, the trauma doc looked at the results, rushed into my room and said it was time to pull this out of my chest.

The J hook part is stuck inside you. The outside part goes to the drain box that holds the "stuff" that comes out. The box has a tube to the suction port in the wall. This is the second box; the first one got full at 2100cc and was replaced.

The doc undoes the stitches that make sure it doesn't pull out on its own, and puts aside some suture material he'd left partly stitched at the time of installation. He tells you to exhale and hold your breath.

Ready?

He rips the tube out like he's starting a chainsaw -- one hand on the rope, and the other on the body to have something to push against.

Then he jams a tube patch gooey bandage into the hole, and pulls tight the stitch he had left undone to close and seal it to keep air from leaking back into the now drained cavity.

You can breathe now.

I should be going home tomorrow morning, after an X-ray to make sure there are no air leaks. To make sure the hole heals and doesn't leak, the advice is basically "don't do anything strenuous for a month."

A week after the incident, the bruising at region of impact was way, way down. That's the drain tube hanging down out of the bandage above.

And when it was over, I had the most marvelous meal anyone had ever had.

Full Post with Comments...

Our New Kit

Packed with as many logos as a Pro Bike, our newest piece of kit comes in a range of capabilities. Taking a clue from the Cycling Biz, a recent innovation has been bold, new, large and EASY TO READ GRAPHICS!



The informative brochure fairly screams: "don't use this at home." On the other hand, they come industrially packed in crates of six for bulk consumption.

We also look forward to our visits by the GE AMX-IV, manned by the tag team of Alphonse and Gaston, who verify daily that the spleen is still holding, Cap'n. These now appear to be vintage machines, maintained by enthusiasts.

We are less impressed by the Whitehall Swivette, which, while space-saving, has a number of practical complications for the one-legged and one-armed which we will leave to your imagination.

We have finally learned one lesson. When the RN says, "ask for help to get up to go to the bathroom, or I'll alarm the bed," she might mean it. It's better to graciously let her help than to always make a stand on principles.

Full Post with Comments...

Landis Goes to the Feds

Update: Phone calls reveal the case was filed with the US District Court, Central District of California, Riverside on 3:20 PM Sep 25th, as case # CV08-06330 PA (CWx). First appearances are scheduled for 11/03/08 at 1:30pm in Courtroom 15. The papers are still not on PACER, which may take a few days. The case has been assigned to District Judge Percy Anderson and Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle. Further filings will go to the Western Division at 312 N Spring St, room G-8, Los Angeles.


As reported by Bonnie Ford at ESPN, Landis has filed a suit in US Federal Court to vacate the CAS award. We don't yet see it in the PACER system, and so don't have a copy of the complaint we can publish, with a case number. If it was filed Friday, it might not turn up until Monday. Until then, we have Ford's report and a discussion over at rec.bicycles.racing, where some first pass issues are raised.

Ford says the core of the complaint deals with conflicts of interests by the arbitrators that were not, and should have been disclosed, particularly betwenn USADA counsel and WADA Code Author Richard Young, and Landis selection, Jan Poulsson. This includes "rotating roles" in different cases. Apparently the extent of the revolving door has only been apparent with some recent releases of case information by CAS.

Ford also reports a sticking point is the award of $100,000, which Landis claims was not properly argued before the panel as a matter of dispute.

Mr. Young's comment to Ford was that the only avenue of appeal is Swiss Court, and this always fails. Without access to the suit, we can't say what controlling law is being claimed by Landis, or how he is going to argue past the difficult venue and jurisdiction requirements.

RBR has some pointed conversation on these issues, but without the substance that will let us gain any real insight. It will suffice to say that some are saying Lawyers are wasting "Fraud's" money again, and that he doesn't stand a chance. Others would like to see some details before making judgment.

We don't know at this point ourselves. Getting past summary motions when trying to review an arbitration award is a big hurdle. We hope trying doesn't annoy potential sponsors for next year.

Full Post with Comments...

Accident Report

The intrepid TBV writes the following report on his recent accident from his hospital bed. It should answer some questions readers have asked, and illustrate what a lucky guy TBV is, despite his injuries.


"It's only a flesh wound!", said the Black Knight.

Near our house is a third mile long 10-15% slope hill that I often use for intervals. Almost at the bottom of the steepest part the road goes under a freeway overpass with a ramp on the short side. Cars coming the other way, up the hill , will make an uncontrolled left turn onto the ramp across your left to right as you ride downhill.

On the far side of the underpass there is an off ramp with a stop sign. Cars can turn right or left, crossing the downhill lane.

There is one traffic lane on each side with a wide curb lane which is not marked as a bike lane. The hill is steep enough that jamming bike brakes will not stop you until you pass the off ramp, unless of course you are riding the brakes all the way down which is rarely called for by conditions. You have the right of way from all of the ramp traffic.

I am always concerned about this stretch. There is ample opportunity for a inattentive driver to kill you, the cyclist. I wear bright kit, helmet, and lights at dusk. I have planned what I would do if a tricky situation should arise. Should a car cross your path, there are four choices. One, brake and hope to stop. This choice is impractical on a bike on this kind of hill. Second, go into the car head on, not advised. Third, try to go around the front of the car hoping your speed is greater than the car's acceleration. This is a gamble, and if you lose, you are in front of a vehicle accelerating either up the hill, or onto the on ramp. I have decided to do the 4th choice as policy. Ride out of the curb lane onto the edge of the traffic lane and for visibility try to preserve maneuvering options. Also should it arise, attempt to pass behind the vehicle rather than in front of it.

On my Wednesday lunch interval session I had done 3 up, and was going down a 4th time. I was sitting up, not tucked, with my hands on the brake hoods. As I approached the on ramp, I saw the SUV roll out of the off ramp without seeing me. I started braking to put a plan in action, and began to turn right to go behind the vehicle. Alas, only then was I seen. As is the proverbial deer in the headlights, the SUV driver stopped moving forward. (had I been a car, the right thing would clearly have been to gun it to get out if the way)

The result of braking and turning was my running into the back left corner of the SUV at an angle, not head on. I felt as though my left hip hit first, then at some point my helmet shattered the cargo window. The final inanimate score was rider: broken window, car: broken new carbon frame. (but not fork or wheels from what I have heard.)

It doesn't look like I have anything that won't heal. The list sounds worse than it probably is considering the severity of each:

1. Broken left clavicle, not displaced, no intervention needed.
2. At least three fractured vertebrae, not displaced.
3. At least three cracked ribs
4. Partially punctured and collapsed left lung, requiring drainage and stay at the hospital
5. Bruised spleen, which appears stable but is being watched carefully.

Anything could easily have been much worse. Not the least of which is that someone got her cell number from me and called Mrs. TBV. She was told that I was conscious and in good care before she got off at the ramp to see me in her worst nightmare.

The driver was distraught, for good reason. I have gotten excellent handling and treatment, and have nothing but thanks for the help and support people have shown me. Unfortunately, this will cancel my participation in the Mt. Diablo challenge part of the triathalon which was to have take place Sunday next week. I had been preparing to crush my 1:28 PR of last year, having done a 1:16 the other day. I was also gonna do the "death valley century" at the end of the month, which is now ruled out. I will be back riding.

Thanks, everyone!

TBV

[Updates: mid-stay, going home, back home]

A few things from here and there

In an update at ESPN Bonnie D. Ford writes that one of the reasons Floyd Landis has filed a motion in the US Federal courts to vacate the CAS decision that went againat him is that he wants the $100,000.00 fine imposed upon him by the panel eliminated. Apparently USADA has informed Landis that he can plan no return to cycling when his suspension ends in January unless and until this fine is paid:

"The arbitrators based their $100,000 cost award on unsworn statements by USADA's lawyer after the close of the evidence, denying Mr. Landis a right to respond," the motion stated. "In addition, the cost award was outside the scope of the arbitrators' power because the issue of costs had not been formally submitted for decision, and because such an award is not contemplated by the rules governing the proceeding."

VeloNews reports Frank Schleck is now under scrutiny for his association with the infamous Dr. Fuemtes.

LAist reviews the "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" DVD in which Floyd Landis is interviewed about PEDs. In case you never managed to get to one of the few theaters which showed the film you will able to buy the DVD on Tuesday when it is scheduled to be released.

Felipe had the chance to ride with "down to earth" dude Floyd Landis recently. He provides a picture to commemorate the event.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 25

Recent cycling vs car accidents have crowded cycling blogs with all too much frequency. Unfortunately this ugly trend has hit very close to home with the injury of TBV last night in such an accident. He is resting comfortably in the hospital and may be off the bike for a while. If you ride, be vigilant, if you drive please watch out for riders, they are so vulnerable. Updates will follow.

Here and There
ESPN's Bonnie Ford reveals that Floyd Landis has filed a lawsuit in Federal Court over the recent CAS decision that went against him:

Suspended cyclist Floyd Landis has taken the unusual step of challenging his doping conviction, stepping outside the anti-doping adjudication system to try to prove in U.S. federal court that his case was not fairly heard by a sports arbitration panel.

Lawyers from firms in California and Texas filed a motion late Thursday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to vacate the arbitrators' award in Landis' appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport last July.

The lawyers did so on the grounds that the three men on the panel -- including the arbitrator Landis chose -- should have disclosed conflicts of interest that could have led to bias in their decision.

Rant could have written about lots of things tonight, but he chose instead to write of the dangers that cyclists face on the roads every day. He wrote about one cyclist in particular who is in lots of folk's thoughts right now, TBV.

Pommi sends his good wishes for a speedy recovery to TBV. Thanks Pommi.

The CyclingNews writes of Dick Pound's dissatisfaction with Lance Armstrong's comeback and proposed association with anti-doping expert Don Catlin. It's just not enough for Mr. Pound who has an elephantine memory.

Jen and Oli on the Loose had quite the "pub crawl" recently with Floyd Landis in Alabama. Jen and Floyd were "best friends of the night" and Jen talked to locals into letting Floyd sing "Sweet Home Alabama". Anyone got that on youtube?

Save a Limb Ride Don't forget that Floyd Landis and the ubiquitous Bob Roll will be participating in this year's ""Save a Limb Ride" which will take place on Sunday, September 28th near Baltimore, Maryland.

Rant notes the official return of LA. and wonders about the roll Don Carlin will play in this seemingly never ending saga.

Racejunkie also writes about the return of the "king" noting that "baby" Contador may have changed his tune.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 24

Here and There
Velo Vortmax finds the time after a long hiatus to comment extensively on the Landis/CAS decision which he considers an abject injustice. He criticizes Christaine Ayotte in particular and the CAS panel in general not only for its decision, but also for the prejudicial manner in which it was rendered:

The CAS Panel condemned Maurice Suh, Dr. Davis, et al., in a vicious written attack as attempting to undermine the current anti-doping crusade by introduction of trivial objections to LNDD and WADA testing protocol. In this matter the CAS Panel could and must be considered irresponsible as every person, even athletes, enjoy due process protections and an opportunity to present their defense by experienced professionals. It is a requirement of any defense in doping arbitration hearings to attack sloppy laboratory work, incompetence, mistakes, anything that might have caused the Adverse Analytical Finding, especially when any one factor or combination of factors probably did cause the Adverse Analytical Finding; as did happen in the Floyd Landis case. Floyd Landis' defense of his innocence should have been praised by the CAS Panel not condemned. This is inexcusable and sets a bad precedent for other accused athletes who which to defend their honor from senseless predatory defamation and bad laboratory science. The CAS Panel should be ashamed of their conduct and apologize to Mr. Floyd Landis and his defense team now.

Rant draws some possible parallels between reports of problems with untested theories of lead analysis at an FBI crime lab and the WADA anti-doping facilities cycling depends on to test its athletes.

Racejunkie writes about the "brave new world" that is testing for PEDs at the Tour de France, and after its long over. Think you tested "negative"? Think again. And much to the relief of the "seniors" at the UCI, Viagra has been deemed "legal".

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 23

The Tour keeps giving...
The AP says the AFLD is doing more tests of tour samples of riders it considers "suspicious". Blood samples from riders that had abnormal but not positive urine CERA tests have been retrieved from the Lausanne lab and sent to the AFLD lab at Chatenay Malabry for analysis. We're of mixed reactions to this. Jerking folks around months after the end of the event is annoying, but this doesn't seem as bad as the lab-shopping that happened to Heras. These are still the "A" samples, and WADA world can do pretty much anything it wants with A's, and we're not opposed to testing and catching cheats -- as long as it is done correctly. Reasonable people can have quite different views of what "correct" means in that context. The AP piece also runs down other tour testing results -- we don't remember Moises Duenas, and the clearing of Jimmy Caspar should say something about Armstrong's "chamois cream" incident. We note that Piepoli's denial of the confession reported in Spanish media is missing.

Here and There
Rant writes about the dq given Canadian parathlete Jeff Adams at the Paralympics in Beijing, and refers readers to Bonnie Ford's recent article about Floyd Landis' possible post-suspension return to cycling.

The CyclingNews also refers to Bonnie Ford's article about Floyd Landis without citing the source of his quotes used in the piece.

Racejunkie feels Johan Bruyneel has some big decisions to make on team leadership, and really "comeback kid" Floyd Landis doesn't owe us anything RJ, but it's nice to be thought of by someone.

The Roid Report's Gary Gaffney covers all his possible descriptive bases when he cites the potential return of Floyd Landis and refers to him as the "2006 non Tour de France winner/loser Floyd Landis".

The Sports Complex notes with some ambivalence Landis' possible return, laughing at the Tour of Missouri.

Cornbread & Shiftin' competed at Pepper Place, and got photos with Landis. There's race photos here, too.

TKP writes about his ride with "nice guy" tdf champ Floyd Landis on Saturday, and after he describes the law profession in no uncertain terms he relates what sounds like a great ride in Birmingham. tkp went out and bravely tried to stay ahead of Landis, with the usual results:

I was caught and the sat in on Floyd's wheel again until the last hill on Ruffner, where once over the top, Floyd came past me like a G5 passing a private single-engine, and eventually I lost sight of him, for good.

Below is a shot from tkp's blog where he is pictured with a very fit looking Floyd Landis.




Velo Cadence was also on the Saturday ride, and promises more:

I took pictures of him getting ready to ride the beach cruiser race. He had a passenger on the back. I will post the picture as soon as I upload it.

which he's done, saying Landis finished mid-pack in the Cruiser race.

Sharing the ride may have been a bad tactical choice.
(Photo: Velo Cadence).

J2d has some other pictures.

Active.com's Bruce Hildenbrand sits the pot of controversy by asking how people feel about comebacks by Landis and Hamilton.

Full Post with Comments...

Irregular Report 22

ESPN's Bonnie Ford talked with Landis about his and Lance's comebacks. The HealthNet/Momentum deal isn't finalized because of sponsorship issues.

Here and There
Floyd Landis was in Birmingham, AL yesterday for the Pepper Place Crits. He also represented Smith and Nephew ---who sponsored the crits--- and participated in a ride there with about 100 other mostly supportive cyclists.

The Birmingham News finally gets a comment from Landis on the ongoing negotiations that may land him at Health Net after his suspension ends January 31:

"It's not solidified yet but it was announced before I had a chance to get everything organized," he said Saturday. "I'm going to be racing again next year. I'm not sure which races I'll do but I'll start most likely with the Tour of California in February."

On the possibility that when he comes returns to competition he will be the target of even greater drug testing scrutiny:

Landis said it really doesn't matter to him if he is a greater target of tests because of his failed tests following the 2006 stage race in France. "I race because I enjoy doing it," he said. "It's been my life for the last 15 years so what other people think really is of no importance to me."

Finger Food has an informed piece about Landis' likely return, with sensible reasoning.

On the other hand, Cynic Central has a message:

Hey Floyd Landis, no one missed you. Don’t mistake the interest and enthusiasm over Lance Armstrong’s impending comeback as an indication that people want your lying, cheating, steroid-ing ass back in the cycling game.

Great news, Pommi is back on his bike! TBV's post-crash return to Diablo yesterday was a 1:23. Bad news for Pommi who feels that Diablo will be an event he volunteers for rather than rides in.

Brickhouseracing was at the Pepper Place Crits yesterday in Alabama where someone talked Floyd Landis into being a "podium boy". Photographic evidence below.

Floyd Landis, "podium boy".

Roadcx also rode in the Pepper Place events with frustrating results, and a fun ride with Landis got canceled.

Crux Cycling did catch onto one of Landis' group rides, and thought his pedaling was effortless. It usually is, when riding with regular humans at 15 mph.

Cat5 JPS runs down some notable cycling injuries, including the disintegrating hip.

In comments at Rant, Luc tells of a visit to Ventoux, where he rented a bike with 27 gears, of which 26 proved unnecessary. TBV might have used 4 on Diablo Sunday, the big ring being useless baggage. A couple of more tubes would have been handy - the second ascent was aborted due to flat.

Full Post with Comments...