Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Cycling - Landis v/USADA
Appeal by Floyd Landis dismissed by the Court of Arbitration For Sport (CAS)

Lausanne, 30 June 2008 – The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed the appeal filed by the American cyclist Floyd Landis and has confirmed the initial decision issued by a Panel of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) on 20 September 2007. Consequently, Floyd Landis is disqualified from the Tour de France 2006 and is suspended for a period of two years starting from 30 January 2007. Floyd Landis has been ordered to pay the sum of USD 100'000 to the United States Anti-doping Agency (USADA) as a contribution towards its costs in the CAS arbitration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
piano said:
This is the perfect time for Mr. Landis to go away forever. :thumbsup:
I doubt it. My prediction is he will go the Tyler route and maintain his innocence and probably sign for Rock Racing next year. A couple of years kicking around the domestic circuit, probably getting a result here or there (which will of course make you wonder why he can't dominate the lowly US scene when he was world class at one point). And then he will fade off into the sunset.

Unless he gets really pissed and rights a tell all book about Disco/Phonak and the whole doping scene in Europe. But I think that is extremely unlikely, he's gone so far down the innocence route, that like Tyler, there is no hope of truth and redemption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
mohair_chair said:
Lots of flawed people associated with this one. But at least now we know.
Mo,

I haven't followed this one very closely. Maybe I'll read the CAS decision, the Hamilton one was pretty illuminating.

But from the story of Velonews it seems like Landis really didn't have much of a case, and the supposed flaws in the testing were much ado about nothing.

Looks like the CAS arbiters pretty much skewered the Landis defense as total BS?

http://tour-de-france.velonews.com/article/79029/floyd-landis-loses-cas-appeal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,671 Posts
I raced with Landis a couple of weeks ago (he showed up at a local training race in Socal). He had Allen Lim (Saris physiologist) with him-getting power data. He looked like he was back in training in serious mode--looked pretty lean, got in a 2 man break with him and were doing 450+ watts with a smile on his face....can't imagine what this guy's like when he's on form. I've heard Rock rumors as well.

His suspension will lift just in time for the Tour of California in 09. Will be an interesting showdown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
i gotta say... Go Rock Racing, I am glad there is a guy like Micheal Ball who, even if it may not be right, will still sign great riders like Landis... I personally am not convinced he doped but I am glad that Ball will give these guys a second chance.
 

·
Back from the dead
Joined
·
20,800 Posts
That article sure makes it seem that way. I'll admit I don't understand exactly how the CAS appeal process works. Did Landis appeal his whole case, or part of the case, or something or someone associated with the case? I don't know, because the CAS hearing was not public, and I don't recall seeing that information anywhere.

It does seem strange that Landis would be skewered by CAS, because the original panel concluded that the first T test was flawed. That was a small victory for Landis. Meaningless in the grand scheme, but a victory nonetheless. So I suspect that Landis had a fairly narrow appeal of some part or aspect of the case, and CAS rejected it and gave him a shellacking. So that doesn't necessarily mean that CAS is slamming Landis' whole case, but just the part of the case he actually appealed.
 

·
Ron&Fez XM202/Sirius197
Joined
·
485 Posts
Can you really blame him for fighting his guilt??? Its the only thing the guy knows....he was showing up at 100 mile mtb races...just to race. I think he was pissed beacause he was snagged for using something 90% of the peloton was using(the T-patch). If you read any of his pre-doping interveiws he stated that he loves racing. I hope he is allowed to race again....and be given a chance to support his family doing the only thing he knows. I would like to see slipstream sign him. This will put him on a team with a strict doping program. Maybe then he will be given a chance.
Bryan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
I can't see Slipstream signing him unless he does a mea culpa soon and that really seems extremely unlikely.

Let's not forget he even solicited money from people and sold a book under the pretense of his innocence. Pretty sure an admission of guilt at this point would open him up to all kinds of lawsuits if not even criminal charges of fraud?
 

·
More cowbell!
Joined
·
2,729 Posts
I followed the transcript of the original hearing pretty closely on TrustButVerify and was admittedly shocked when the AAA panel decided against him. The CAS hearing was basically a re-trial under WADA rules, so they heard much of the same evidence and perhaps several other revelations that came out of the AAA hearing. This decision, based on my understanding of the evidence presented, is really disappointing. The entire case should have been thrown out when the chain of custody was broken.
 

·
haole from the mainland
Joined
·
5,966 Posts
No way Slipstream is signing him. Doesn't Slipstream, err Garmin, want to get a ProTour license? Landis isn't allowed to be on a ProTour team until 2011.

Given how screwed up the ProTour is now & having to field teams, one might argue Slipstream is better off NOT being ProTour. If they get invited to the big races--most of which aren't obligated to include all the ProTour teams anyway--why bother?


Dwayne Barry said:
I can't see Slipstream signing him unless he does a mea culpa soon and that really seems extremely unlikely.

Let's not forget he even solicited money from people and sold a book under the pretense of his innocence. Pretty sure an admission of guilt at this point would open him up to all kinds of lawsuits if not even criminal charges of fraud?
 

·
Back from the dead
Joined
·
20,800 Posts
Cyclo-phile said:
I followed the transcript of the original hearing pretty closely on TrustButVerify and was admittedly shocked when the AAA panel decided against him. The CAS hearing was basically a re-trial under WADA rules, so they heard much of the same evidence and perhaps several other revelations that came out of the AAA hearing. This decision, based on my understanding of the evidence presented, is really disappointing. The entire case should have been thrown out when the chain of custody was broken.
From the CAS decision:

"All the appellant has established after a wide-ranging attack on the LNDD is that there were some minor procedural imperfections. This was not surprising in view of the unprecedented scope and intensity of the technical challenges made against the LNDD by the appellant and his witnesses.”

I guess "minor procedural imperfections" is in the eye of the beholder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
mohair_chair said:
I guess "minor procedural imperfections" is in the eye of the beholder.
Well, it is 5 vs. 1 now and we know the 1 is a former athlete who thinks the process is fundamentally unfair to athletes. He even sided with Hamilton in his case. Don't ask me how he gets to be an arbiter, when they are supposed to decide the case on the merits of the evidence and follow the rules as agreed upon by the respective parties. IOW, I don't understand how such an opinion can come into play if you're a qualified arbiter.

The rules as I understand them, basically say, the errors have to be so large or blatant that they call into question the fundamental validity of the results. Just creating "reasonable doubt" is far below the standard required.
 

·
Back from the dead
Joined
·
20,800 Posts
Dwayne Barry said:
Well, it is 5 vs. 1 now and we know the 1 is a former athlete who thinks the process is fundamentally unfair to athletes. He even sided with Hamilton in his case. Don't ask me how he gets to be an arbiter, when they are supposed to decide the case on the merits of the evidence and follow the rules as agreed upon by the respective parties. IOW, I don't understand how such an opinion can come into play if you're a qualified arbiter.

The rules as I understand them, basically say, the errors have to be so large or blatant that they call into question the fundamental validity of the results. Just creating "reasonable doubt" is far below the standard required.
I would feel a lot better about all of this if there were some public admonishment of the labs who are responsible for the "minor procedural imperfections." LNDD screwed up, got caught, tried to deny it, and only because the screw ups weren't considered bad enough by the panel did they get away with it. Now they are essentially absolved of their sins. That doesn't inspire confidence. I'm sure over at LNDD, everyone is happy they finally, officially got Landis, while conveniently forgetting that they have some fixes to be made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
Dwayne Barry said:
Well, it is 5 vs. 1 now and we know the 1 is a former athlete who thinks the process is fundamentally unfair to athletes. He even sided with Hamilton in his case. Don't ask me how he gets to be an arbiter, when they are supposed to decide the case on the merits of the evidence and follow the rules as agreed upon by the respective parties. IOW, I don't understand how such an opinion can come into play if you're a qualified arbiter.

The rules as I understand them, basically say, the errors have to be so large or blatant that they call into question the fundamental validity of the results. Just creating "reasonable doubt" is far below the standard required.
What makes you think Arbiters are neutral in any form. Heck, the recent Supreme Court decisions , particularly the 2nd amendment decision, shows hearngs are just as political and self-serving as anything else.

The LNDD can go back to shotty work and leakage of information, safe in the knowledge that rigor does not apply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,671 Posts
having just read through the CAS award, it's clear Landis never had a chance. They give every latitude to the LNDD; only the 'concept' of chain of custody has to be followed, not the literal guidelines. It's OK that Frelat was not trained or certified to do tests, that she knew the identity of the B sample, stated that her job was to 'confirm the results of the A sample, re-run tests until the right results appeared without an audit trail. on and on....

as a scientist, the standards used are really appalling. I sure wouldn't want my fate in the hands of these clowns.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top