October 10, 2007

""Knowing that the accusations against me are simply wrong, and having risked all my energy and resources - including those of my family, friends and supporters - to show clearly that I won the 2006 Tour de France fair and square, I will continue to fight for what I know is right," said Landis. " Yup. Just like OJ is still looking for the real killer. Give it up Floyd.

posted by jhkaplan at 05:01 PM on October 10, 2007

Apoch- if you don't agree with everyones point of view that is fine. But to attack jhkaplan because he does not agree with you is pitiful. Just like Landis and his attempt to "clear" his name and title. If you post a link expect that some people will not agree with you. He was not comparing the two as the same offense, just trying to point out that he believes Landis is just as guilty in his situation as OJ was in his. (Forgive me and correct me if I am wrong jhk).

posted by urall cloolis at 06:41 PM on October 10, 2007

apoch didn't say people couldn't disagree with him. And let's face it, jhk's comment is basically content-free. But we won't survive around here very long if we object to every instance of that particular sin. I have not had time to look over the AAA decision in detail. However, I have gone carefully over a number of CAS decisions in the past and I will say that the panels usually give athletes a very fair and detailed hearing, and most importantly they have a strong tradition of sticking by the letter of the law. I don't always agree with the decisions, but they are always rational and carefully argued.

posted by Amateur at 07:36 PM on October 10, 2007

Landis, 31, of Murrieta, Calif., had questioned the cost of a CAS appeal after spending, by his estimate, $2 million on his appeal of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's charge he had committed a doping violation Where the hell did Floyd Landis come up with 2 million bucks to make his defense? MIchael Vick's lawyer would do it for half of that, nevermind, seems that didn't go so well so far (either). But here's a question I haven't seen on any of the many cycling sites I view. What happens if he does win and overturns the doping charge? Does Oscar Pereiro then have to give the yellow jersey back to Landis? Good point. Here is another question: If Landis loses will everyone shut the hell up about how he was screwed over? Will any of his supporters admit he is a cheater or will they continue to make excuses for their fallen hero? (as I have heard in McGwire, Bonds, Jones, Pacman, OJ, and Vick threads)

posted by urall cloolis at 09:25 PM on October 10, 2007

"I fed up with this blog... I'am pissed off and fed up by getting ganged up on." You're familiar, I presume, with the fact that your computer has an off button? I know it's confusing that when you want to stop, the first icon you click says "start", but I'm guessing you've managed it the odd time and that your computer hasn't remained permanently switched on since the day you bought it. If you don't like it here - if you don't like getting called out every time you write complete and utter nonsense (before then backtracking furiously) - then go away. I've seen you say at least twice now that you're posting your last post and won't be back. Do us all a favour and stick to your word. This is a post about Floyd Landis, not Mark McGwire, or indeed you, so unless you have something to say about Landis (something that is other than "You know what Floyd Landis reminds me of? Reminds me of how you all gang up on me."), stop muddying it up. To return to the topic raised by the FPP, from what I've read and seen on TV, there seem to be some doubts as to the safety of the results provided by a questionable sampling procedure. If he achieves nothing else, it might benefit the sport of cycling (and sport in general) if the questions he raises in pursuing this lead to a review of that procedure.

posted by JJ at 04:19 AM on October 11, 2007

I guess I'm seeing and reading the same things as JJ, because I can't say with certainty that I trust the chain of custody in the Floyd case. I still think it's pretty farfetched that an anti-American prejudice is causing officials to spike urine samples, which has certainly been postulated on this site more than once. I find it much easier to believe that the positive results in the Landis case are the result of shoddy techniques and bad science than conspiracy. That said, my gut reaction is, he's guilty. None of us will probably ever know for sure, though. brickman - people are on your case so often around here because you don't seem to know what you're talking about. You make statements which you seem to think the rest of us should take as fact just because you said it. That doesn't fly around here. Even a broken watch is correct twice a day, which is twice as often as you are. I agree with the other posters; if you're going to quit, then quit and be done with it. If not, stop the whole "Everybody look at me, I'm going to quit, no really, I'm going to do it!" crap. Go bother the people at Deadspin.com instead.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:30 AM on October 11, 2007

Here is another question: If Landis loses will everyone shut the hell up about how he was screwed over? No. Will any of his supporters admit he is a cheater or will they continue to make excuses for their fallen hero? Any? Well, depending on whether you flex the definition of "admit" to mean "change their mind to believe", the answer is probably yes. Will I be one of them? No, sorry, I'll continue to be an agnostic. And, in the same vein, I will continue not to be a "Landis supporter" as such, as a supporter of Landis (and every athlete who is subjected to PED regulations) getting the benefit of a meaningful and fact-based due process, which I believe has not happened. You may not see the distinction, but then, a lot of people don't really see the distinction between an agnostic and an atheist.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:34 AM on October 11, 2007

I fed up with this blog. See ya!

posted by tommybiden at 08:53 AM on October 11, 2007

Does anyone even care anymore?

posted by Brahdakine at 11:46 AM on October 11, 2007

I'm curious. Aside from getting his reputation and title back, what does Landis have to gain by pursuing this? Would he have spent this much moola on defense if he was guilty? Can he recoup his losses from endorsements if he wins? I have to admit to not knowing much about this sport except for the scandals. I only watch the Tour de france for the accidents.

posted by irunfromclones at 01:28 PM on October 11, 2007

Brahdakine: Does anyone even care anymore? I take it from that that you somehow managed to miss all the doping discussion threads -- entirely possible, as you've only been here a week -- went into the comment area of this thread, somehow managed to not notice the thirty or so comments ahead of yours, and thus remain confused as to whether anyone still cares about the outcome of the Landis case. The answer to your question is yes. Sharpen your powers of observation just a trifle, and these subtleties will have a harder time eluding you in the future. irunfromclones: I'm curious. Aside from getting his reputation and title back, what does Landis have to gain by pursuing this? There is the possibility that he is a principled person fighting a form of injustice that harms others as well as himself.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:57 PM on October 11, 2007

The chain of custody and testing procedures are always being questioned in cases, look up: Simpson, Orenthal James. It does not make someone innocent. Maybe it helps further testing, hopefully. There are loopholes everywhere in life and Landis is just exhausting all his efforts to find one that may stick with someone, somewhere that matters. It is called an aggressive defense.

posted by urall cloolis at 09:08 PM on October 11, 2007

There is the possibility that he is a principled person fighting a form of injustice that harms others as well as himself. Absolutely. There is also the possibility that there are vast amounts of money riding on a overturning. By his own estimate he'd have spent $2 million. Well, that's certainly a number... that he can say without ever having to support it. Has it really come to Landis now being a victim in the great Dick Pound witch hunt? That's now a popular position to have? Seems on one hand we have Landis, who is fighting and fighting these seemingly repeated confirmations of his cheating. On the other we have Marion Jones - who ferociously denied allegations for years, only to be forced into a comupance, and we have BALCO, who were obvioulsy way ahead of the testing game. We also have various national sports governing bodies who's sole job appears to be protecting national sports figures who cheat (USATF, I'm looking at you). I'm sorry - but I can't get behind Landis, or any of these athletes. The whole sport is completely questionable. Teams are firing riders faster than testers are catching them. Why? Because there doesn't seem to be much of a debate internally as to who's doped up and who isn't. It's patentedly ridiculous. This is the only subject that's discussed in non-cycling circles. I find it all completely absurd. The Tour is an exercise in watching the mega-mice run their laps before the lab gets them. You might as well politely applaud the guy who finishes first and then start cheering when his test results are successful. There isn't a shred of credibility on any side. But I'll be damned if I'll see Landis as some poor victim of bureaucracy in the whole thing.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:15 AM on October 12, 2007

The single greatest problem with the current fight against doping in sport is that once accused, an athlete is assumed guilty until proven innocent not only by the sport's governing body but by the court of public opinion. Test results are leaked and even if the B sample comes back negative the damage has already been done to the athlete's as well as the sport's reputation. In any fair system of justice the defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is rightly placed upon the prosecution to prove that the defendant committed the offense. Why is this the case? Because it is impossible to prove a negative except in the most specific cases. Even in the absence of positive tests it is impossible for any athlete to prove that they never doped. In a situation where they are guilty until proven innocent, there is no way for an athlete to ever clear their name, regardless of test results. Even taping every second of every day of their lives since birth would not be conclusive proof of not doping. There could always be doubt about additives to food or drink that weren't prepared on camera. The only defense an accused athlete has is to disprove the prosecutions case. Some will call this looking for a loophole, or skating by on a technicality, but it is the only defense an athlete has. They can't have an alibi, they are never accused of being at a specific place or time. They can't prove they didn't dope. The charge against them is that they failed a drug test and the only defense against that is to attack the legitimacy of the drug test. There are two ways to do this: Attack the Chain of Custody and Attack The Testing Procedure. Attacking the Chain of Custody (CoC) shouldn't be an option the athlete ever has the opportunity to take. The CoC starts when the specimen is collected. After collection the specimen is sealed and the collector and collectee sign off on a form stating date and time of collection and that the specimen is in the collectors possession. Every time the specimen changes hands the next person signs date and time that they received it from the person before hand. When the specimen gets to the lab it can be signed into storage, but it is signed out of storage when being used and signed back into when done. It is even signed for when the specimen is disposed off. This simple procedure provides proof that the specimen was always accounted for. Breaking the COC is either a mistake or a deliberate attempt to tamper with the specimen, either way, the vaildity of the sample is in question. The athlete can also try and prove that the test was not run properly. They can try and prove the machine wasn't calibrated properly, the testing procedure wasn't followed, problems with the testing procedure, or human error in running the test. Pretend the athlete has successfully shown that the test is invalid for any of the above reasons. In a climate of guilty until proven innocent they are still guilty. All the athlete has proven is that the authorities didn't catch him properly. He has still failed to prove his innocence. The athlete has only succeeded on finding a technicality. The only way the fight against doping against sport can be fair is if the athlete is innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise the burden of proof on the accused athlete is impossible to meet. The current system is neither fair nor just, and will remain so until the paradigm shifts to innocent until proven guilty. If you want to accept the decision of the arbitration panel 2-1 against Landis, fine, that is your right. I read the testimony, examined the evidence to the best of my ability. I've drawn my own conclusions and they are that the arbitration panel came to the wrong conclusion because the lab did such a poor job testing the specimen that we can never know if Landis doped or not. In a system of innocent until proven guilty, he must be assumed to be innocent. In a system of guilty until proven innocent, the lab results are irrelevant, he can never prove his innocence. I have two reasons for supporting Landis' decision to appeal: I hope and believe he didn't dope, and the system is not fair and needs serious action to correct the issues inherent to it. Even if Landis doped, a greater good is served by clearing him and correcting the injustices in the system than by stripping him of his title. On preview: I'm sorry for the length.

posted by apoch at 09:05 AM on October 12, 2007

All athletes are subject to sceptism based on the past behaviour of other athletes in similar positions. That is what we in the definition business (*disclaimer - Poster is not in the definition business*) like to call a stereotype. While the Jones' situation has public opinion implications, it has no legal implications on the Landis case. Any arbiter that takes the Jones situation into consideration while hearing Landis' appeal doesn't belong in the arbitration business. You, however, are free to be as skeptical and stereotypical as you like. Anyone know of a list of all athletes with positive A samples and the end result? It'd be interesting to see.

posted by apoch at 12:47 PM on October 12, 2007