[Sonoma Hills]

Appeal by Landis appears unlikely

By Mark Zeigler
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

September 22, 2007

After waiting four months for a decision from a three-man arbitration panel, it's time for Floyd Landis to make one of his own.

Does he or doesn't he appeal?

On Thursday an American Arbitration Association panel ruled 2-1 that the Murrieta cyclist indeed had used banned substances during the 2006 Tour de France, stripping him of his title and suspending him until Jan. 30, 2009.

Landis, about to turn 32, has one final avenue within the sporting world, an appeal to the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport. Athletes generally have 21 days to file one, but International Cycling Federation (UCI) rules allow up to a month. There are indications he is leaning against going the CAS route.

“The only way this could have come out any differently is if one of the arbitrators was drunk and checked the wrong box,” Landis told ESPN.com, sounding very much like a man resigned to his fate. “There's something going on here other than trying to figure out the science.”

Besides the considerable legal expenses – Landis says he has spent in excess of $1 million – there is CAS' record of never overturning an AAA case. In some instances, CAS has even lengthened the suspension.

Among the growing number of people advising Landis against an appeal is his mother.

“I'm not a fighter and I really think he's proven his point,” Arlene Landis told reporters from her Pennsylvania home. “If it was me, I would just feel like I'm not being treated fairly, but I know in my heart that I won the race so let people make their own decisions.”

The Floyd Fairness Fund, which raised money for Landis' legal defense, sent out a letter yesterday soliciting contributions “to pay off outstanding receivables incurred by spending decisions made by Floyd's attorney during the (arbitration) hearing.” It does not mention a possible appeal.

[ChrisH]

Besides the considerable legal expenses – Landis says he has spent in excess of $1 million – there is CAS' record of never overturning an AAA case. In some instances, CAS has even lengthened the suspension.

I've made that point several times before, but given the way this has played out, that latter stat isn't relevant. In other marginal cases, the USADA settled prior to going to arbitration. With Landis, his Tour crown was on the line and a settlement was almost an impossibility.

Given the number of lab errors compared to the Landaluze case, I suspect that Landis has a good chance of winning on appeal. Perhaps a settlement is now in order (and Landis could be more forthcoming about any doping information that he has personal knowledge of). In which case, others might appeal the settlement, but at least then the USADA would be on Landis's side. I agree with Landis that if he were to appeal, he has to go the CAS route first before appealing outside of the sports system. To bypass the CAS altogether, IMO Landis would have to show more than unfairness, but corruption.

Additionally, I'm once again concerned about the lack of a robust riders' union.

[D-Queued]

...
Additionally, I'm once again concerned about the lack of a robust riders' union.

Following the off-topic... because, well, just because.

Wouldn't that be great? The riders could finally stand up for themselves and do things like refuse to race if there was a doping crackdown. You know, like refuse to start at the Tour or start at the Spanish National Championships. Wouldn't that be great?

Dave.

[Double R]

Wouldn't that be great? The riders could finally stand up for themselves and do things like refuse to race if there was a doping crackdown. You know, like refuse to start at the Tour or start at the Spanish National Championships. Wouldn't that be great?

You sounds like Maggie Thatcher, when she tried to clean out all unions in the 80's.

So, because there are examples of riders refusing to ride, the riders shouldn't have a strong union?
If anything, the last week has learned us that federations and race-organizers run over the riders. As the case with Valverde (CAS) and Bettini (local civil court in Stuttgart) it's not allways that everyone else is right and the riders are wrong. The UCI are a powerfull organisation, so is the ASO, then obviously the riders need a powerfull union to defend their rights.

[jimmypop]

... deleted because I can't seem to string a sentence together today...

This post has been edited by jimmypop: 28 September 2007 - 07:07 PM

[D-Queued]

You sounds like Maggie Thatcher, when she tried to clean out all unions in the 80's.

So, because there are examples of riders refusing to ride, the riders shouldn't have a strong union?
If anything, the last week has learned us that federations and race-organizers run over the riders. As the case with Valverde (CAS) and Bettini (local civil court in Stuttgart) it's not allways that everyone else is right and the riders are wrong. The UCI are a powerfull organisation, so is the ASO, then obviously the riders need a powerfull union to defend their rights.

Get real. The only thing a riders union is going to do about doping, is to make sure it never gets uncovered all under the auspices of 'protecting the athletes'. Think we have seen enough athlete protection, don't you?

Dave.

[swimyouidiot]

Get real. The only thing a riders union is going to do about doping, is to make sure it never gets uncovered all under the auspices of 'protecting the athletes'. Think we have seen enough athlete protection, don't you?

Dave.

No.

Omerta needs to end. No doubt. But cycling will never be clean until the riders buy into a fair and reasonable anti-doping system, and that system will not be created until the riders have more power.

Peace

[sundaymorning]

No.

Omerta needs to end. No doubt. But cycling will never be clean until the riders buy into a fair and reasonable anti-doping system, and that system will not be created until the riders have more power.

Peace

Hey, I'm all for giving Moser the boot and bringing in a labor organizer to reform the CPA, BUT...

That is a very naive statement, swim. Riders (and their doctors) who regularly change tactics to avoid detection and who take drugs which aren't yet certified for human use are not that concerned with a reasonable anti-doping system. It's certainly not going to make them forsake the PEDs/methods.

[swimyouidiot]

Hey, I'm all for giving Moser the boot and bringing in a labor organizer to reform the CPA, BUT...

That is a very naive statement, swim. Riders (and their doctors) who regularly change tactics to avoid detection and who take drugs which aren't yet certified for human use are not that concerned with a reasonable anti-doping system. It's certainly not going to make them forsake the PEDs/methods.

It is not a sufficient condition, but it is a necessary condition. One of the reasons people use PED's is because they think they have to to win or even just keep up. If they had more (near complete) confidence in the system, and believed nearly everyone using would be caught, they would be much less likely to use. That type of system won't happen until the riders buy into it. They won't buy into it unless they are able to (at least) help shape it. The morons who lead cycling won't let them help shape it until they have some power. They won't have enough power unless they have some kind of effective riders union.

But, what do I know? (I do NOT mean that sarcastically, at least not on this subject.)

Peace

[jimmypop]

Get real. The only thing a riders union is going to do about doping, is to make sure it never gets uncovered all under the auspices of 'protecting the athletes'. Think we have seen enough athlete protection, don't you?

Dave.

Agreed. My initial comment tried to say this, but I sounded like a socialist. Look what players' unions have done to American sports. The fact that standard labor protections even apply to athletes-for-hire bothers me a bit, and I'm tired of hearing about due process for a guy who throws a ball. Play at your own risk, I say, and if you don't like a leagues rules, find another league to participate in.

There is a possibility that a riders' union would successfully advocate for more realistic stage races and the like, and work for a drug-free sport. But in reality, this would quickly degenerate to Fort Knox-like protection for doped riders. And, just like American sports, even the owners and organizers will support this system, because it makes for more exciting (drug-addled) competition at the expense of participants. In the end, the cyclists would only end up hurting themselves, though they may be able to bargain for a few more bucks in the short term.

I'm not sure that cycling in general has earned the benefit of such protection.

This post has been edited by jimmypop: 29 September 2007 - 01:59 PM

[Old Runner Guy]

The fact that standard labor protections even apply to athletes-for-hire bothers me a bit, and I'm tired of hearing about due process for a guy who throws a ball. Play at your own risk, I say, and if you don't like a leagues rules, find another league to participate in.

Your passing a moral judgement on someone's profession. You get decide which workers are worthy of rights and which are not. And, in your opinion, getting paid to be an athlete is not a "real job" so we don't have to treat them like any other worker?

Please tell us what workers are worthy of "special treatment."

[Chris E]

I have to chuckle whenever the term "union" gets tossed into professional sports. Organized labor by the common class fighting for 40 hour work weeks, health care, fair wages, etc. has degenerated into protection for multi-millionaires who wish to cheat at games.

Thinking a cycling union would decrease drug use instead of just enable it is more of the black is white and up is downism that we have all become used to lately in other areas of society. If there was more outrage by the "majority" clean peloton at dopers then maybe there would be a glimmer of hope. Omerta would become stronger if the cyclists had more protection.

[Steve in ATL]

I have to chuckle whenever the term "union" gets tossed into professional sports. Organized labor by the common class fighting for 40 hour work weeks, health care, fair wages, etc. has degenerated into protection for multi-millionaires who wish to cheat at games.

Thinking a cycling union would decrease drug use instead of just enable it is more of the black is white and up is downism that we have all become used to lately in other areas of society. If there was more outrage by the "majority" clean peloton at dopers then maybe there would be a glimmer of hope. Omerta would become stronger if the cyclists had more protection.

This is a canard (the "millionaire" athlete) at least, vis-a-vis cycling. There is a small percentage at the top that are millionaires. There is a substantial (but by no means a majority) who do well - say, what your average physician might make in the US. Then there is the vast majority of riders who make the UCI minimum. Unlike the Floyd Landis' and Tyler Hamiltons, they cannot afford to mount legal defences of a highly technical nature should they ever be wrongly accused (although in this forum, to many, no one has or is ever going to be wrongly accused - and if they are, angels and fairies will leap out of the ehter to show us that He Is The One).

Like the reactions to Cancelara's statments (and Cioleks, and Voigts, and on and on) there will never be enough condemnation from within the peloton, especially for the sideline experts.

[jimmypop]

Your passing a moral judgement on someone's profession. You get decide which workers are worthy of rights and which are not. And, in your opinion, getting paid to be an athlete is not a "real job" so we don't have to treat them like any other worker?

Please tell us what workers are worthy of "special treatment."

How about - not athletes. Their unions have consistently demonstrated an inability to play fairly. It's not about "protecting rights" or any of that - it's about extortion. That's not to say that owners wouldn't take advantage of players if the situation were reversed, but it's hardly about keeping a level playing field among all parties involved.

[Chris E]

This is a canard (the "millionaire" athlete) at least, vis-a-vis cycling. There is a small percentage at the top that are millionaires. There is a substantial (but by no means a majority) who do well - say, what your average physician might make in the US. Then there is the vast majority of riders who make the UCI minimum. Unlike the Floyd Landis' and Tyler Hamiltons, they cannot afford to mount legal defences of a highly technical nature should they ever be wrongly accused (although in this forum, to many, no one has or is ever going to be wrongly accused - and if they are, angels and fairies will leap out of the ehter to show us that He Is The One).

Like the reactions to Cancelara's statments (and Cioleks, and Voigts, and on and on) there will never be enough condemnation from within the peloton, especially for the sideline experts.

So why don't the vast majority of the riders that make the minimum sound off against those few millionaires, most of whom have been shown to dope? Why don't they want to be in that exclusive club, if they are clean?

A union would only serve to protect the doping culture, under the guise of rider's rights. This is the current argument of the thread, brought up by SYI. You criticize those that take Cancellara's words out of context or due to poor translation, while I make a blanket statement per the results of blatant union tactics in pro sports and you post critical of my statement. Of course most cyclists are not millionaires, and if that is all that unionization would do (raise salaries., testing protocol, conditions) then I am all for it. Unfortunately, it also evolves into a tool to shield cheaters, as US sports have shown. The term "union" in pro sports further denegrates it's real meaning, which we all owe alot to today.

The only reason the TH's and FL's spend alot of cash to mount a defense is because there is no incentive not to. If punishment was lessened in exchange for information to bust the culture then we would probably not be having this discussion. That is the solution to the whole subject of this section of the forum, not unions. YMMV.

[one-mint-julich]

Hey,Steve, did you miss that reference to Maggie Thatcher?

Why yes, I did. I'll have a look at it. Next time, PM me or post a note in the "Feedback and Support" forum, since we're on a rules kick.

This post has been edited by Steve in ATL: 30 September 2007 - 02:29 AM

[Chris E]

Hey,Steve, did you miss that reference to Maggie Thatcher?

Why yes, I did. I'll have a look at it. Next time, PM me or post a note in the "Feedback and Support" forum, since we're on a rules kick.

What does that have to do with the discussion, ie unions would or would not promote less PED use in the peloton?

This post has been edited by Steve in ATL: 30 September 2007 - 02:33 AM

[admt]

What does that have to do with the discussion, ie unions would or would not promote less PED use in the peloton?

Hmmm, one mod started the OT and everyone ran along including another mod. Paul.

[D-Queued]

Hey,Steve, did you miss that reference to Maggie Thatcher?

Why yes, I did. I'll have a look at it. Next time, PM me or post a note in the "Feedback and Support" forum, since we're on a rules kick.

Tip my hat to admt, this union discussion probably does deserve its own thread.

It is tied to Floyd, however, since he pretended that the FFF in some way would provide benefits commonly associated with a union.

As for debate over unions and their application in this case, I am all for it. I lean strongly against unions, but I have worked in situations where a union would have been, and have been valuable. I am personally responsible for having one union shop decertified and restructured another to avoid union entanglements. I have also successfully managed in union situations. I also successfully campaigned against a large union drive.

There was also a time when unions were a huge benefit for athletes (e.g. early pro hockey), but those times have long since changed. NA pro team owners do make enormous profits, however, and sharing those profits with the athletes that actually generate the interest does have resonance. The problem with the enormous salaries and enormous profits is truly as much the responsbility of the gullible fan as it is the million dollar illiterate athlete.

But, unions are all about protectionism, maintaining a status quo, and supporting the most inefficient worker. It is really hard to justify the fit in a high performance environment.

Just my (off topic) opinion of course.

Dave.

[Ali]

... But, unions are all about protectionism, maintaining a status quo, and supporting the most inefficient worker. It is really hard to justify the fit in a high performance environment.

Just my (off topic) opinion of course.

Dave.

You should maybe look to your history books and trace the development of the union before you make such absurd statements. I agree that unions can, and do, get out of hand on occaision, but there is a real and genuine need for employee representation. Whether you call that a "union" or something else, is irrelevant. Personally, I despise the attitude that employers regard their employees as "human resources". That really disgusts me. It sets the scene for all sorts of inappropriate behaviour, under the guise that the emplyees are simply "resources", like computers or photcopiers. Lack of representation paves the way for this to get out of hand. I've seen it.

Cyclists are so obviously in need of representation. They are treated as the ultimate human resource, their performance is all that matters. However, being human, they are subject to the same mental and physiological ailments that we are all subject to. Unfortunately, unlike the rest of us (who are protected by basic employment laws, generated from union activity), cyclists can lose their job because they fall ill (or suffer constructive dismissal - eg Armstrong). That's just crap. How can anyone support that !