Not looking to stir the pot, but am curious why there’s no decision yet?
I was just wondering the same thing and almost posted it but though, “Eh, it’s not worth opening that can of worms.”
Seriously though, I am very curious.
Yes they stated that a decision would be made by the end of June. Amazing how long things take in the high tech. world
S
Saw this on another forum:
From MSNBC on 8/12/07:
"
Landis said he doesn’t mind that the arbitration panel is trying to get the decision right by going over the science and basis of the testing; he just wants to have some kind of timetable for a decision — one way or another — so he can get on with his life.
“It’s been three months since the hearing and I haven’t heard a word — nothing at all,” Landis said. “If they’re going to do it right and they’re going to take their time, that’s fine, I don’t mind. I just don’t know what the time frame is. It would make it a lot more simple if they just said ’it’ll be next January.’ That’d be fine.”
I tell you, I didn’t believe landis before I read his book, or at least I was actively investigating the biochemistry of it, looking at the structures of cortisone and testosterone, because they only differ by a carbonyl group here, a double bond there, not too much. Anyway, the book swayed my position.
There. I’ve opened it.
In the book does he talk about his testosterone levels early in the Tour, the day of the failed test, and then later in the Tour? I mean beyond the fact that they weren’t absolutely high on the day of the failed test.
bella,
“…by the end of June.”
They just never said June of what year!
Having read the Landis book, the foot dragging in this decision is not surprising.
One of the members of the Landis defense team, Paul Scott, was the Director of Clients (the number two position) at the WADA accredited anti-doping laboratory at UCLA. According to Paul Scott, who reviewed all doping testing results prior to litigation to ensure an air tight case, Floyd’s results were not positive. Paul Scott would have recommended that Floyd’s case not be pursued as it was extremely weak at best.
In all the US cases so far, an athlete has never prevailed or overturned the testing results (called the testing results into such serious question as to overturn the results). Dick Pound, the head of the US Anti Doping Agency has hung his hat on this record and used it at every turn in his quest to get more money from Congress to expand his agency. As the Floyd “prosecution” has become more suspect/contested by recognized authorities in the science world, the US ADA has shifted its priorities and allowed less well know athletes with solid positive test results go free because the Floyd case was consuming so much US ADA funds.
Dick Pound has recently announced his “retirement” at the end of this year. The number two person is also “retiring” at the end of this year. The number three person is moving up to assume leadership of this agency. He is very much like Dick Pound in philosophy and action according to Floyd. Don’t expect much change as a result of these personnel changes at the US ADA.
However, let’s speculate a little. This may be the first doping case the US ADA loses. This could be a big high profile black mark on Dick Pounds’s record and reputation for reasons of poor choice in pursuing and then not backing down when the science did not support the results. Politically, Dick Pound may not have been able to resist taking on such a high profile case and what it would mean in terms of = garnering congressional support (read $$$$$) and publicity for himself and his agency if he won. Now, perhaps, Dick Pound, is trying to make a quiet exit before a ruling is handed down in this case so he comes out looking like the saint he wants everyone to believe he is. Then the verdict in the Landis case will be “hung” on the head of the new head of the US ADA instead.
Just might be a possibility. Would also mean we won’t learn the verdict until after the end of this year. Because its been so “quiet” maybe Dick Pound is hoping evryone will kind of forget about this case and it will pretty much drop off the radar.
Ha Ha.
By the way, the Floyd book, Positively False, is a very interesting read. He and his defense team have certainly frustrated the US ADA and its quest to ramrod this case through the system to get a favorable ruling. They have also frustrated and upset the US ADA for publicizing virtually every aspect of this case and the test results. Where science did not support the US ADA, they attempted to introduce any all manner of evidence to be used against Floyd that in a normal US court would be thrown out.
“Dick Pound, the head of the US Anti Doping Agency has hung his hat on this record and used it at every turn in his quest to get more money from Congress to expand his agency.”
Dick Pound is not the head of USADA, he’s the head of WADA.
**As the Floyd “prosecution” has become more suspect/contested by recognized authorities in the science world, the US ADA has shifted its priorities and allowed less well know athletes with solid positive test results go free because the Floyd case was consuming so much US ADA funds. **
How did you come by that information?
Not looking to stir the pot, but am curious why there’s no decision yet?
Like the other guys said - read the book, it will become clear as day why they haven’t come to a decision.
Unlike many, I didn’t think he was guilty before reading the book - certainly not for testosterone at least - and after reading the book I believe this more strongly. But all of our speculation means nothing. The main point is that Landis and team have such a strong case against the prosecution, and there is no denying this as they made all evidence public before USADA put a stop to it, that it looks as if there is no way they can convict him without severe injustice taking place.
Hey! It’s my job to bring up this topic every couple of weeks on Slowtwitch.
Mind yerown business.
The decision is expected at the end of September
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=2998627
.
they have waited so long-- I’m starting to wonder if they are pushing it back so that by the time a verdict is announced he will have already served 2 years of suspension – so that it doesn’t matter what the ultimate decision is – at least in terms of riding in the pro peloton.
For daily updates on all things Landis, check the blogsite: Trust But Verify. The author admittedly is pro-Landis, but looks at all the daily information pretty fairly.
http://trustbut.blogspot.com/
JohnA,
Thank you, I stand corrected.
vitus979,
“Like the other guy said, read the book.”
Obviously, naming names in a situation like this without any charges having been filed becomes a clear case of defamation of character, however, Paul Scott discussed two strong cases of doping violations by Ameican athletes in the Fall of2006 that the USADA declined to pursue. One of the athletes was a cyclist and the other athlete was a track-and-field athlete. Both were cases of alledged EPO use. The cyclist’s document packet was one of the last ones that Paul personally supervised before he left the UCLA lab. “To me, that’s a rock solid case,” Paul said. “Indefensible by the athlete.” For the other case, Paul had been shown the document packet, and the case appeared to be very strong.
Pages 258 and 259. Read the book!
Unlike many, I didn’t think he was guilty before reading the book - certainly not for testosterone at least - and after reading the book I believe this more strongly.
after reading another excellent book (‘from lance to landis’), i tend to now look at rider doping from the ‘big picture’ perspective.
and here is something interesting to chew on:
whether or not landis is or is not convicted on this particular case, it is simply impossible for a normal world-class athlete (i.e., an un doped-up one) to go off the front (as landis did in last year’s tour) of a thoroughly doped-up pack of riders in a world-class pro stage race (i.e., the pros in the tour de france) and still prevail in the GC. the speed of a doped-up pack is simply too great for a normal even elite athlete to drop them.
the only way you can drop a doped-up pack and recover from that effort is to be doped-up yourself. so the sheer fact that landis did this is near proof that he is likely taking a cornucopia of “substances” (perhaps even his own frozen blood) irrelevant of whatever the decision is in this one case.
Yes, but you can’t find someone guilty because of that. I think that is WADA’s (and USADA’s) problem here. They know Landis was “very probably” on drugs (as was most every TdF winner of the recent era - Ullrich, Pantani, etc.), even though most of those guys were never caught. It’s like how everyone “knew” OJ did it. But knowing and proving are two very different things. What matters to me is that I don’t believe they can (or did) prove that Landis cheated. And they can’t just bully him because it is very, very probable that as a TdF winner, he did so.
yes, i totally agree.
WADA must follow their own protocols. otherwise it is just subjective and selective enforcement. but i think it is pretty obvious that no one is really interested in enforcing the drug rules, this is just a “show trial”.
unrelated, the book (lance to landis) does a great job (with evidence) of showing just how deep and wide the doping problem runs …
GregX,
I agree that a pro athlete cannot simply drop an entire pro peleton, but if you re-watch the stage you realize that no-one was chasing until the very end.
Floyd had the advantage of the support car by his side the whole time during an exceptionally hot day. His power output was no more than he normally puts out on his hard training rides.
Cheers