Landis is GUILTY

[NOTAWOFTAM]

zebragonzo wrote:
The problem is that there were a lot of procedures that were ignored. It's things like accidentally destroying the original sample that show that things weren't very professionally done at the lab.

Swinter wrote:
The first lab messed up, which the original panel found for Landis on. But the isotope test did him in. And that was done by a different lab.

Swinter is incorrect on this point. All tests were done @ LNDD.

FWIW, I don't think Floyd did what his is accused of, and I know they did not prove it to any reasonable person's comfortable satisfaction. The WADA system is set up to convict accused athletes. The adjudication process (bad joke in this case) is to the near complete advantage of the ADA's. I watched the whole of the Malibu hearing, read all of the transcripts, read the CAS Closing briefs from both sides, read the the CAS Award (decision) and have read several of the witness declarations that are begining to become available online. The CAS hearing turned out to be even more of a stacked deck than the Malibu hearing. The "work product" that LNDD produced in the Landis case would earn the average Chem 101 student a failing grade. It is tragically laughable that the WADA system accepts such low standards as proof of an AAF in its closed system.

It's disappointing so many cycling enthusiasts think such a system is okay.

[swinter]

Well, I like to think of myself as a reasonable person. And, having read the original tribunal's opinion in its entirety (and I'm a law professor), I was satisfied.

I think you are wrong about the labs, btw -- though I am happy to be corrected if you have a source. But, in any event, the irregularities had to do with the ratio test and not the isotope test.

As I've posted before, belief is more powerful than facts (and there is some great science on that point). Some people will always want to believe. But the level of proof (and of the lawyering -- on both sides and by the panel) was pretty high here.

[flattythehurdler]

As I understand it, floyd questioned the procedure of the B sample analysis, and in this , the original ruling was that he was correct. Unfortunately, they had already gone back and tested all of his urine samples from the Tour with a far better, though more expensive test. They showed exogenous testosterone throughout.
Floyd argued in his appeal that the improved test wouldn't have been run had the flawed test not been positive, and hence the results should be discarded. This was compared to having been stopped for speeding due to faulty equipment with a murder victim in one's boot, and appealing the murder conviction because the original arrest for speeding was flawed.

[NOTAWOFTAM]

Swinter,

You are the first intelligent person I've encountered who thinks the tests were done in different labs. (Requested by Landis-request denied) I don't have a single source to debunk your claim. It's contained in the volumes of testimony/exibits. Do you have a source that shows testing being done in a lab other than LNDD?

I'll agree, the level of lawyering was pretty high, on both sides - with a systemic advantage to Young.

Point of information: Richard Young was a primary (if not the primary) author of the WADA Code with respect to the ajudication process. Richard Young was employed as outside counsel for USADA to act in a prosecutorial role in the complaint against Floyd Landis in both the AAA (Malibu open hearing) and the CAS (NY/NY closed hearing) hearings. Richard Young is a member of the arbitration pool for CAS. All of this is under the WADA umbrella. Are these kinds of relationships too cozy, or are they okay???

I appreciate you opinion as a law professor. Some law professors agree with you, others don't. A quick poll of a sample of practicing attorneys that I know is also split, but generally along the lines of their knowledge of the case and the specific adjudication process employed. None would subject their client to a similar process if there were another option to be heard, almost to the attorney.

I’m disappointed you are satisfied with the AAA hearing. What do you think wrt the merits of the Dissenting Award by Campbell?

(Hint wrt the cite you requested: The AAA Majority Award, AAA Dissenting Award, and the CAS Award make no mention of a lab other than LNDD being involved in the testing of Landis' samples)


flattythehurdler,

You understand it incorrectly. The AAA panel (Malibu open hearing), as you indicated, found LNDD's A-Sample testing (wrt to Landis) lacking and through out those results. However, CAS found everything to be fine. (rubber stamped LNDD's findings)

The arguement has been brought up, regarding the logic of proceeding with B-Sample testing when the A's screened no AAF. However, that was far away from the thrust(s) of the case presented by the Landis legal team. Landis' team questioned the handling of his samples (including, but not limited to contamination or degradation), Isoprime machine set-up, Isoprime machine calibration, LNDD's departure from an ISL approved method for testing, showed how peak pattern matching did not satisfy the ISL, showed that LNDD did not even properly identify the metabolites in question, kept records so poor that the procedure could not be reconstructed, and questioned the veracity of Young's witnesses and LNDD when missing documents were produced only when the Landis side showed an ISL violation and when those documents were produced in a format that suggested fraud. That's just a quick sample.

There is much more. I think your summary was too limited to accurately draw the analogy you provided and is not an appropriate comparison.

That (1) the WADA system is written to give the labs such sweeping latitude in violating ISL standards and (2) that the CAS panel accepts shoddy labwork and fudged documentation to support a severe sanction against an athlete while (3) holding the athlete to strict liability speaks volumes to how broken the WADA system is.

[swinter]

Swinter, . . . I don't have a single source to debunk your claim. It's contained in the volumes of testimony/exibits. Do you have a source that shows testing being done in a lab other than LNDD?

That's not much of a response. But you are nonetheless correct; it was done at Châtenay-Malabry.

I'll agree, the level of lawyering was pretty high, on both sides - with a systemic advantage to Young.

Point of information: Richard Young was a primary (if not the primary) author of the WADA Code with respect to the ajudication process. Richard Young was employed as outside counsel for USADA to act in a prosecutorial role in the complaint against Floyd Landis in both the AAA (Malibu open hearing) and the CAS (NY/NY closed hearing) hearings. Richard Young is a member of the arbitration pool for CAS. All of this is under the WADA umbrella. Are these kinds of relationships too cozy, or are they okay???

Perfectly normal.

It's not like Floyd didn't have attorneys with expertise in these kinds of cases. I don't see any unfair advantage at all.

I appreciate you opinion as a law professor. Some law professors agree with you, others don't. . . . I’m disappointed you are satisfied with the AAA hearing. What do you think wrt the merits of the Dissenting Award by Campbell?

It's been a long time now since I read it the opinions. I only remember not being impressed with the dissent. But I do not remember any specifics.

I thought the majority opinion was lawyerly and carefully reasoned. I didn't see any obvious problems with the hearing, though I only read the news reports.

Bottom line is the man cheated. He then lied about cheating (i.e., it was just alchohol; it's all my natural testosterone). When that didn't work, he tried to throw as much sand in the machine as he could. When that didn't work, his intimates tried to intimidate LeMond (with Floyd sitting right there, claiming he hadn't heard).

What would it take to convince you?

[NOTAWOFTAM]

Swinter, . . . I don't have a single source to debunk your claim. It's contained in the volumes of testimony/exibits. Do you have a source that shows testing being done in a lab other than LNDD?

That's not much of a response. But you are nonetheless correct; it was done at Châtenay-Malabry.

I'll agree, the level of lawyering was pretty high, on both sides - with a systemic advantage to Young.

Point of information: Richard Young was a primary (if not the primary) author of the WADA Code with respect to the ajudication process. Richard Young was employed as outside counsel for USADA to act in a prosecutorial role in the complaint against Floyd Landis in both the AAA (Malibu open hearing) and the CAS (NY/NY closed hearing) hearings. Richard Young is a member of the arbitration pool for CAS. All of this is under the WADA umbrella. Are these kinds of relationships too cozy, or are they okay???

Perfectly normal.

It's not like Floyd didn't have attorneys with expertise in these kinds of cases. I don't see any unfair advantage at all.

I appreciate you opinion as a law professor. Some law professors agree with you, others don't. . . . I’m disappointed you are satisfied with the AAA hearing. What do you think wrt the merits of the Dissenting Award by Campbell?

It's been a long time now since I read it the opinions. I only remember not being impressed with the dissent. But I do not remember any specifics.

I thought the majority opinion was lawyerly and carefully reasoned. I didn't see any obvious problems with the hearing, though I only read the news reports.

Bottom line is the man cheated. He then lied about cheating (i.e., it was just alchohol; it's all my natural testosterone). When that didn't work, he tried to throw as much sand in the machine as he could. When that didn't work, his intimates tried to intimidate LeMond (with Floyd sitting right there, claiming he hadn't heard).

What would it take to convince you?

Swinter,

Yes, we are now finally in agreement about where the testing was done. The testing on the Landis samples taken at the 2006 TdF were all processed at the WADA approved lab in Châtenay-Malabry, which is LNDD.

No, Young’s involvement is not normal. Young arguing before the CAS panel was a clear conflict of interest. It’s another example demonstrating the shortcomings of the process required by the WADA Code for athletes holding a UCI license vs. court cases heard based upon English Common Law, in many countries. The code was purported to have been put in place to streamline the process and reduce costs vs. having cases heard via court systems. Floyd Landis’ case proved those reasons to be false. At nearly two years out and millions spent on both sides, there was no savings in time or money. And it may not be over yet. The clock and the money meter may still be ticking over. The system did what it set out to do. It convicted an accused athlete without the possibility of independent oversight.
For and an enlightening look at how the system is set up and an explanation of its shortcomings, see: http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2008/07/go ... aster.html
I’ll be happy to discuss the merits of the article with you.

Since the process didn’t rely on general impressions, but specific questions of fact, I’m surprised a law professor would paint them with such a broad brush. I’m also surprised you have little recollection of the Dissent Award, given some of Campbell’s strong words. Here are a couple of links to help refresh your memory:
Majority Award:
http://www.usantidoping.org/files/activ ... 0(20-09-07)%20(3).pdf
Dissenting Award:
http://www.usantidoping.org/files/activ ... issent.pdf

You were, of course, joking about relying on reports from the news media to discern whether there were any obvious problems with the hearing. If you need me to provide you with a link to the hearing transcript, I can do so. However, I’m not one of your law students and at some point you’ll need to locate and research accurate sources yourself.

Your assessment of the “bottom line” is highlighted by emotion and innuendo. Regarding Greg LeMond, even the Majority Award (see above) found his testimony without merit. LeMond was a sideshow, as he has often been since ending his career as a rider.

It would take a system where the Alphabet Soup Officials, the labs and their staffs are held to the same strict liability standards as are the athletes. It would take a system that doesn’t stack the deck in its favor wrt the arbitration pools for their hearings. It would take a system with fair and rational rules concerning conflict of interest (Richard Young). It would take labwork that included full records so that the process could be reconstructed. That would be a start. At this point we don’t know with any certainty if Landis doped or not. We only know a stacked system convicted and sanctioned him for the offense.

Your mind is probably as made up as mine is on the issue. I don't hope to change your mind. I only hope that other cycling enthusiasts might read this, do some research for themselves and decide, based on the most accurate facts available, and then make up their minds.

The WADA/USADA/FFC/ASO/IOC/LNDD/UCI PR spin is self serving BS. It is intended to protect and perpetuate the system. IMHO, it's a blemish on the cause of anti-doping in sports.

[swinter]

You're right: No persuasion will happen here.

Take your complaint about Young: "Richard Young was a primary (if not the primary) author of the WADA Code with respect to the ajudication process. Richard Young was employed as outside counsel for USADA to act in a prosecutorial role in the complaint against Floyd Landis in both the AAA (Malibu open hearing) and the CAS (NY/NY closed hearing) hearings. Richard Young is a member of the arbitration pool for CAS. All of this is under the WADA umbrella. Are these kinds of relationships too cozy, or are they okay??? "

What's wrong with it? I don't see. If I draft a statute (something I've done), then I'm an expert on it. Sure it makes sense for the administrative agency that administers the statute to hire me. Whom should it hire?

If I retire from the agency, I go to a firm and then sell my services as an expert defense counsel. That's the way the system works.

The blog you sent me to seemed quite incoherent. "The WADA code is the master they all serve"? Of course it is. If the legislature adopts a statute prohibiting some behavior (say, heroin use) then that is the goal that prosecutors and judges try to implement. They should do it fairly and impartially, but they are sworn to implement that goal.

If I were an attorney in the case on either side, I'd study the transcripts. I am not, so it's not worth that kind of investment of time. I did follow the hearings in various news reports and didn't see anything that would make me, as a professional, raise an eyebrow. And I read the opinions carefully at the time. I've stated how they struck me.

As fas as I can see from skimming the dissent again, it parroted the Landis line. But I'm not going to invest the time to wrestle with it point by point. Landis had a full and fair hearing and he lost. For me the case is over. For the Landis diehards it will never be over. C'est la vie.

I do agree the LeMond testimony didn't add much of substance. But the Geoghan/Landis behavior did tell us a lot about character, as I have previously posted. Landis's account to the press of his non-involvement in the phone calls was quite incredible given that the first phone call was made from the dinner table with him sitting right there and the second, as I recall, was on his own account made from his (Landis's) hotel room.

I do also agree that the lab needs to tighten up its procedures. Were they less than meticulous in following procedures? Yes. Did they cook the data? I didn't see any evidence of that. The conspiracy argument (which in one form or another was the heart of Landis's case) is quite preposterous. Especially after the isotope test.

[NOTAWOFTAM]

As I understand it, floyd questioned the procedure of the B sample analysis, and in this , the original ruling was that he was correct. Unfortunately, they had already gone back and tested all of his urine samples from the Tour with a far better, though more expensive test. They showed exogenous testosterone throughout.
Floyd argued in his appeal that the improved test wouldn't have been run had the flawed test not been positive, and hence the results should be discarded. This was compared to having been stopped for speeding due to faulty equipment with a murder victim in one's boot, and appealing the murder conviction because the original arrest for speeding was flawed.

I'll use a quote to better answer your post:

Judge William Hue wrote:
"Landis never disputed the position the IRMS test was dispositive, or the theoretical science behind that test. He disputed the science behind the execution of the test and that is was improperly reported as an AAF. The “B” sample IRMS test result was put at issue for over 10 days of hearing. It would have been gratifying for interested third persons to understand, from the “reasoned written decision” exactly how and why the majority resolved those factual and scientific issues."

[NOTAWOFTAM]

You're right: No persuasion will happen here.

Take your complaint about Young: "Richard Young was a primary (if not the primary) author of the WADA Code with respect to the ajudication process. Richard Young was employed as outside counsel for USADA to act in a prosecutorial role in the complaint against Floyd Landis in both the AAA (Malibu open hearing) and the CAS (NY/NY closed hearing) hearings. Richard Young is a member of the arbitration pool for CAS. All of this is under the WADA umbrella. Are these kinds of relationships too cozy, or are they okay??? "

What's wrong with it? I don't see. If I draft a statute (something I've done), then I'm an expert on it. Sure it makes sense for the administrative agency that administers the statute to hire me. Whom should it hire?

If I retire from the agency, I go to a firm and then sell my services as an expert defense counsel. That's the way the system works.

The blog you sent me to seemed quite incoherent. "The WADA code is the master they all serve"? Of course it is. If the legislature adopts a statute prohibiting some behavior (say, heroin use) then that is the goal that prosecutors and judges try to implement. They should do it fairly and impartially, but they are sworn to implement that goal.

If I were an attorney in the case on either side, I'd study the transcripts. I am not, so it's not worth that kind of investment of time. I did follow the hearings in various news reports and didn't see anything that would make me, as a professional, raise an eyebrow. And I read the opinions carefully at the time. I've stated how they struck me.

As fas as I can see from skimming the dissent again, it parroted the Landis line. But I'm not going to invest the time to wrestle with it point by point. Landis had a full and fair hearing and he lost. For me the case is over. For the Landis diehards it will never be over. C'est la vie.

I do agree the LeMond testimony didn't add much of substance. But the Geoghan/Landis behavior did tell us a lot about character, as I have previously posted. Landis's account to the press of his non-involvement in the phone calls was quite incredible given that the first phone call was made from the dinner table with him sitting right there and the second, as I recall, was on his own account made from his (Landis's) hotel room.

I do also agree that the lab needs to tighten up its procedures. Were they less than meticulous in following procedures? Yes. Did they cook the data? I didn't see any evidence of that. The conspiracy argument (which in one form or another was the heart of Landis's case) is quite preposterous. Especially after the isotope test.

Can you tell me who authored the blog and the author's qualifications to make the comparisons/contrasts he made in the blog? I can if you can't.

The blog I highlighted explains in detail how the process is slanted against the athlete under a pretext of fairness.

You've provided no indication that you have read the blog, Majority Award, or the Dissenting Award. In skimming your resposne it appears full of vauge generalities. If you'd like to actually read the authoritative sources and discuss the specifics, I'd be happy to take some time to do so, otherwise you are just wasting my time.

[swinter]

he's a judge. so what?

it's not like we didn't debate the details at length last year when the original panel rendered its decision. as far as I can see, nothing new has been added.

cheers.

[xjaysonx]

i work at www.coloradocyclist.com we host a ride every year "the copper triangle" last year landis attended. he was stopping for food right in front of our mechanic/rest stop, and could not un clip and fell right over, in front of everyone. he must have still been on the dope.