Landis CAS Decision Is Out . . .

[BumbleBeeDave]

This moved 8 minutes ago on the AP wire . . .

BBD

=============================

BC-CYC--Landis Appeal,0153
URGENT
Cyclist Floyd Landis loses CAS appeal
Eds: APNewsNow. Moving on general news and sports services.
LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — Floyd Landis has lost his final chance to
retain his 2006 Tour de France title.
Monday’s decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport is the last step
of a multimillion-dollar process that poked holes in the anti-doping
establishment but ultimately left the American cyclist as just another
convicted cheater.
A three-person CAS panel upheld a previous panel’s decision, ruling his
positive doping test during the Tour two years ago was, indeed, valid.
Landis also must pay $100,000 toward the legal fees of the U.S.
Anti-Doping Agency.
AP-ES-06-30-08 1058EDT

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . at 11:08 AM.

BBD

================

BC-CYC--Landis Appeal, 1st Ld-Writethru,0706
URGENT
Cyclist Floyd Landis loses CAS appeal
Eds: UPDATES thruout; ADDS details, background. Moving on general news and
sports services.
AP Photo NY150, NY151
LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — Floyd Landis lost his final chance to retain
his 2006 Tour de France title Monday, the last step of a long,
multimillion-dollar process that poked holes in the anti-doping
establishment but ultimately left the cyclist as just another convicted
cheater.
A three-person CAS panel upheld a previous panel’s decision, ruling his
positive doping test during the Tour two years ago was, indeed, valid.
Landis also must pay $100,000 toward the legal fees of the U.S.
Anti-Doping Agency.
The CAS panel, noting the harsh nature of much of the Landis testimony,
agreed with USADA’s contention that Landis’ witnesses “crossed the line,
acting for the most part as advocates for the Appelant’s cause, and not as
scientists objectively assisting the Panel in the search for truth.”
The decision comes just six days before the start of the 2008 Tour. Landis
won the 2006 edition after a stunning comeback in Stage 17, a rally that
turned out to be fueled by synthetic testosterone.
The ruling upholds Landis’ two-year ban from cycling, which is due to end
Jan. 30, 2009, though at this point, the ban wasn’t the real issue.
Landis hoped to be exonerated and to get his title back. He also wanted to
use the protracted case to shed light on procedures at USADA and the World
Anti-Doping Agency, which he says are unfair and rigged against athletes
who often don’t have the resources to fund their defense.
“That’s always been part of the system, that they’ve always had more
resources than the athlete. This is the first time it’s even been close,”
Landis’ attorney, Maurice Suh, said in an interview last year.
Bankrolled through several private sources, including a fundraising
campaign he launched on his own, Landis forced a case that cost more than
$2 million — a burden on him, but also a strain on the bottom lines of
both USADA and WADA, which shared the cost of prosecuting the case.
After his unprecedented public hearing at his first arbitration case last
May, the arbitrators upheld his doping ban but scolded USADA and the labs
it uses for practices that were less than airtight.
That appeared to give Landis the opening he needed to justify an appeal to
CAS. The hearing took place in March in New York, and was considered a
“trial de novo” — not technically an appeal, but a chance to have the case
heard anew. But the evidence presented over the five-day hearing didn’t
change the final outcome.
Thus ended the longest, most expensive and most bizarre case in modern
anti-doping history.
It included some scandalous revelations during the public hearing, nothing
more shocking than when former Tour de France winner Greg LeMond entered
the hearing room.
LeMond told of being sexually abused as a child, confiding that to Landis,
then receiving a call from Landis’ manager the night before his testimony
threatening to disclose LeMond’s secret to the world if LeMond showed up.
Though it made for great theater, it was damaging for Landis. In the end,
the only aspect of the LeMond testimony the panel considered was LeMond’s
claim that Landis had admitted to him that he doped — and the panel
disregarded that testimony, saying it couldn’t be used as an admission.
The cyclist’s future plans aren’t yet known, though he was said to be
hurting financially.
What’s for sure is he will go down as the first cyclist in the history of
the Tour to have his title stripped for a doping violation. But only time
will tell if he’ll also be known as the man who made the anti-doping
establishment change its ways.
AP-ES-06-30-08 1106EDT

[weiwentg]

well, LNDD still has zero credibility in me opinion. this doping stuff is a nice racket if you can get it.

this was posted recently, and it's for a different substance, but I'm linking a Science Daily article questioning the reliability of the EPO test.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080626100921.htm

[Bruce K]

Kind of too bad.

If he had won it might have moved this process to one of more transparency, and veracity.

Now it is still just a questionable process that needs clarity.

Do I believe there is/was doping going on - ABSOLUTELY. I just think the current process is shaky and needs improvement.

BK

[chakatrain]

Although this is easy enough to say, this is sort of what I expected, unfortunately, when this whole insansity broiled to the top of the news. Landis found guilty, Landis himself not admiting the doping.

What's the stone cold truth here? I think we'll never know. If Landis continues to claim innocence, as I believe he will, we'll be left with that gap between his claims and the judicial interpretation of procedures and results, flawed as they are, stuck in this limbo having to conclude, I suppose, that Landis simply isn't coming clean.

I do hope, perhaps naively, that this episode forces the labs to clean up their respsective acts.

[Charles M]

Kind of too bad.

If he had won it might have moved this process to one of more transparency, and veracity.

Now it is still just a questionable process that needs clarity.

Do I believe there is/was doping going on - ABSOLUTELY. I just think the current process is shaky and needs improvement.

BK



REAAAALY well said.

[gomez308]

I don't know if Floyd doped or not. But I do know that he should have been found innocent. There were just too many flaws in the case. The Pro Cyclist Union really needs to grow some balls and put a stop to the riders taking the brunt of the punishments in cases that can't even be scientifically proven.

[Waldo]

And I too still believe in Tyler, Santa Claus and Easter Bunny :p

well, LNDD still has zero credibility in me opinion. this doping stuff is a nice racket if you can get it.

this was posted recently, and it's for a different substance, but I'm linking a Science Daily article questioning the reliability of the EPO test.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080626100921.htm

[mosca]

It's the lottery aspect of this situation that bothers me. Can you throw a plastic cup into the peloton without hitting a doper? It's not like they've cleaned up pro cycling with this case; there are many other violators who still have their palmares and their careers, while Floyd's career is destroyed and he's out $2 million plus. The punishment just seems disproportionate to the crime, and the inconsistencies found at the lab only underline the lack of fairness in the process.

[benb]

I'm wondering if:

- He doesn't care about cycling going forward
- He doesn't care to be a DS
- Doesn't want to be a VS announcer or something, etc..

If he could just ignore the $100,000 fine.

Does CAS actually have the rule of law behind it?

It's like if you're a Cat 3 and USCF decided to fine you $500 for arguing with an official or something..

If you just walked away what could they do?

I suppose he's probably bound by some kind of contract or something and they'd take him to civil court?

[BBB]

Yes, CAS does have the rule of law behind it. He can't ignore the fine.

[weiwentg]

And I too still believe in Tyler, Santa Claus and Easter Bunny :p

not saying Floyd is innocent. like the others, I'm saying the court should have found him not guilty. a criminal court would have thrown the 'evidence' out.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Yes, CAS does have the rule of law behind it. He can't ignore the fine.

Did the US government ratify some sort of treaty that gives it the force of US law? If not, and Floyd decides he's not ever going to do anything in cycling again, what the hell would WADA and USAC do about it? They'd have to file a civil case against him in US courts? I'm betting the court would just claim no jurisdiction.

Anyway, this just adds weight to what I've already thought for a long time . . . UCI and WADA and US Cycling are way more interested in LOOKING like they're doing something about doping than they are in actually doing something about it. The way the rules are formulated and enforced is a bad joke.

BBD

[KKevin]

Theres something wrong when all the flaws in the testing were ignored when the arbiters wrote their decision. Im sure the presumption of proof is different, i.e. not reasonable doubt, but they should have recognized the problems at LNDD.

Maybe Floyd should just become Belgian or French, they dont seem to care if their stars test positive or never admit guilt.

[regularguy412]

Theres something wrong when all the flaws in the testing were ignored when the arbiters wrote their decision. Im sure the presumption of proof is different, i.e. not reasonable doubt, but they should have recognized the problems at LNDD.

Maybe Floyd should just become Belgian or French, they dont seem to care if their stars test positive or never admit guilt.

The root of this suggestion has been my contention, all along. To me, it's still about the French (read:ASO) growing tired of being upstaged by American riders or American-based teams winning 'their' race -- now for 9 years in a row.

They can't seem to field a team that can win their own race, so they resort to trying to discredit the winner. Granted, some or even many of the American winners have likely doped at some point. It just seems like if the French (ASO, WADA, suspect testing lab) were on the up and up, the results of a 'positive A sample' wouldn't be 'leaked' before a confirming B sample could be tested. It's not right to try a rider in the court of public opinion. That's pure disrespect.

Mike in AR:beer:

[mosca]

"The CAS panel, noting the harsh nature of much of the Landis testimony, agreed with USADA’s contention that Landis’ witnesses “crossed the line, acting for the most part as advocates for the Appelant’s cause, and not as scientists objectively assisting the Panel in the search for truth.”
This quote stood out to me. The Landis defense has always struck me as characteristic of the US justice system, wherein this behaviour by Landis' legal team is generally expected. Taking this approach with organizations and individual panelists who are accustomed to a more, ummm, traditional process is asking for trouble imho.

The typical Euro defense seems to be "Gee, I only tried it once and I'm soooo ashamed, suspend me for a while and let's move on." Floyd, on the other hand...

[BBB]

Did the US government ratify some sort of treaty that gives it the force of US law? If not, and Floyd decides he's not ever going to do anything in cycling again, what the hell would WADA and USAC do about it? They'd have to file a civil case against him in US courts? I'm betting the court would just claim no jurisdiction.

Anyway, this just adds weight to what I've already thought for a long time . . . UCI and WADA and US Cycling are way more interested in LOOKING like they're doing something about doping than they are in actually doing something about it. The way the rules are formulated and enforced is a bad joke.

BBD

I believe CAS was created pursuant to Swiss Law.

Yes the US Government did ratify a treaty that enables arbitral awards (such as the one handed down by CAS in regards to Landis) to be enforced in a Court. In theory, if Landis does not pay the $100,000 in costs, the USADA simply has to commence proceedings in order to enforce the award.

As for your second point, there seems to be inconsistencies in the way national federations deal with these matters. So Landis gets lumped with a 2 year ban, while Vino bows out of the sport quietly and gets a one year ban by his national federation. Or look at the differences between how the Italians and the Spanish handled their cyclists following Operation Puerto. Maybe there ought be some form of standardisation across the board, so that everyone gets treated equally.

But at the end of the day, the rules (as opposed to enforcement) are pretty clear cut; Landis recorded a positive test, he contested the finding and he lost - twice and in fact 5 out of 6 people who heard his two matters did not believe his case.

[KKevin]

There is an article in Velonews where Johan is interviewed and mentions some interesting informational tidbits which enforce my thoughts that the ASO just wants to take their ball and go back home.