[Surftel]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

telling the truth is always so much easier. ....the FFF is going to need a rush of donations to cover this bill.

[ZigZagged]

The truth is always the easiest way in the long run, but if one of the disincentives against appealing a doping positive involves paying the WADA's costs as well as for one's own defense, then I'm right back to thinking the system is totally busted. No matter what one thinks of Floyd, this is just one more example of how the system is built to beat down an athlete saddled with and AAF, to make pursuing an appeal of the initial finding the STUPID way to go, even if one is innocent. And that's sad, cause sometimes people are innocent even if initial tests show otherwise. You know, tests like Floyd's T/E ratio test, infallible as it is supposed to be.

If the organization cannot pay to enforce its own rules and follow the process designed in house, then it has no business existing.

This post has been edited by ZigZagged: 12 May 2008 - 10:33 PM

[N.B.O.L.]

And I'm sure WADA will be more than willing to pay Landis' legal bill if CAS rules in his favor.

[sundaymorning]

You know, tests like Floyd's T/E ratio test, infallible as it is supposed to be.

If the organization cannot pay to enforce its own rules and follow the process designed in house, then it has no business existing.

Regarding your first comment...Landis was going to use his $2 million to fight the charges no matter what the test results looked like. I guarantee you his team would have found exploitable portions of any lab document package from any WADA lab. Maybe the whole "French lab" characterization brought in some extra dough, but no matter where the tests had been run, Landis would have put up the same aggressive defense.

As to the second part...seems like things get costly when the ante gets upped constantly. The public nature of Landis' defense made USADA feel like they had to plan for all eventualities. Plus there was tons of extra legal wrangling.

Anyway, I agree with NBOL about the sauce for waterfowl thing. Although from the comment at TBV about another story on this matter (I can't get that original story to load), it sounds like they may just be talking about court costs.


BTW, as to the T/E ratio...IIRC, duckstrap impugned that very test for free here at DPF. I believe the same thing today that I argued when Floyd's public defense started. If it wasn't highly focused and prioritized it would fail. It wasn't, and it did at the initial hearing. Floyd has wildly overpaid for what he got. Wildly.

[Surftel]

The truth is always the easiest way in the long run, but if one of the disincentives against appealing a doping positive involves paying the WADA's costs as well as for one's own defense, then I'm right back to thinking the system is totally busted. No matter what one thinks of Floyd, this is just one more example of how the system is built to beat down an athlete saddled with and AAF, to make pursuing an appeal of the initial finding the STUPID way to go, even if one is innocent. And that's sad, cause sometimes people are innocent even if initial tests show otherwise. You know, tests like Floyd's T/E ratio test, infallible as it is supposed to be.

If the organization cannot pay to enforce its own rules and follow the process designed in house, then it has no business existing.

The losing side paying the cost is common legal practice in most arbitration, it is not unique to WADA/CAS.

millionaire athletes and their sucker fans/contributors keep WADA from doing their real work. They will keep pursuing their case to the end of the appeal, no matter how pathetic their case is, in order to maintain the charade of innocence.

[OAR]

The losing side paying the cost is common legal practice in most arbitration, it is not unique to WADA/CAS.

millionaire athletes and their sucker fans/contributors keep WADA from doing their real work. They will keep pursuing their case to the end of the appeal, no matter how pathetic their case is, in order to maintain the charade of innocence.

so true....who will buy this chicken #### Defense who will buy the FFF???? who will buy this this chicken #### Defense who will buy the FFF! I don't know and I don't know and I don't CARE!

[frenchfry]

Although Landis has often vaunted the transparency of his defence, he has not communicated the actual cost despite the fact that he has often used the "poor athlete against the rich system" PR spin. We see numbers like 1 million, up to 2 million thrown around. Although I am sure the final bill will be huge, no one seems to have an idea how much it will be, including Suh.

What did Landis get for this astronomical sum? In the end he wasn't just defending himself against a doping charge. He attacked the entire international anti-doping structure, supposedly in the interest of all athletes. The problem was that apparently not one other athlete joined his cause so he ended up financing his quest alone, with the help of the FFF. Should we now feel sorry for him when his personal crusade has failed at virtually every level and caused him financial difficulties? I certainly don't.

The argument that the anti-doping organisations shouldn't be given the financial means to combat attacks like Landis' is so ridiculous that it defies reason. If indeed WADA has used 5% of their annual budget on this one stupid doping case something is wrong. I guess Landis has the right to be a reckless spendthrift, but hopefully his folly is an example to others.

Should losers be required to pay? In principal I would say yes, but in practice I think not. Athletes should have the right to defend themselves without this additional burden. Unless deliberate lying can be proven without any doubt.

This post has been edited by frenchfry: 13 May 2008 - 07:14 AM

[admt]

wildly overpaid for what he got. Wildly.

Overpaid to feed…a dog? Are you animal enemy, SM?

Here’s Ali’s dog master flying back home for $35,000. No doubt, to feed his hungry and fast running dog ….

paid by FFF

Meier-Augenstein didn’t want to fly in and out of the United States. The cost of the special arrangements charter plus business-class commercial flights to Vancouver was estimated by one person in the Landis camp at $35,000

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...52100583_2.html

[frenchfry]

Overpaid to feed…a dog? Are you animal enemy, SM?

Here’s Ali’s dog master flying back home for $35,000. No doubt, to feed his hungry and fast running dog ….

paid by FFF

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...52100583_2.html

Not only did the special arrangements cost a fortune, but it appears he had to leave the hearing to catch his charter flight before the defence team could question him. I guess when you have millions of chump money to throw around, 35K is pocket change.

Given a chance to do redirect on the witness after Young was done, Suh demurred, saying he'd rather make sure his witness get to the airport to catch his private charter back to Washington, where he would cross the Canadian border to make his business-class flight back to Ireland.

[ZigZagged]

Regarding your first comment...Landis was going to use his $2 million to fight the charges no matter what the test results looked like. I guarantee you his team would have found exploitable portions of any lab document package from any WADA lab. Maybe the whole "French lab" characterization brought in some extra dough, but no matter where the tests had been run, Landis would have put up the same aggressive defense.

As to the second part...seems like things get costly when the ante gets upped constantly. The public nature of Landis' defense made USADA feel like they had to plan for all eventualities. Plus there was tons of extra legal wrangling.

Anyway, I agree with NBOL about the sauce for waterfowl thing. Although from the comment at TBV about another story on this matter (I can't get that original story to load), it sounds like they may just be talking about court costs.
BTW, as to the T/E ratio...IIRC, duckstrap impugned that very test for free here at DPF. I believe the same thing today that I argued when Floyd's public defense started. If it wasn't highly focused and prioritized it would fail. It wasn't, and it did at the initial hearing. Floyd has wildly overpaid for what he got. Wildly.

I've never like the "French Lab" characterization- I think "LNDD" by name is sufficient and not nationalistically derogatory- it accurately describes one particularly imnportant lab that is not run as tightly as necessary. Nitpicking can be done anywhere, no doubt, but under scrutiny LNDD did not shine. And I firmly believe that it would benefit all in sport if it did. The botched T/E test didn't make me feel better about the lab. That was basically pathetic from my perspective, to screw up such an important and apparently fairly simple test.

An open hearing was the way to go, even with the shenanigans that occurred. It was a briefly open window into how this ridiculous process works.

Legal stuff is expensive, no doubt. People tend to fall into the trap of thinking it's too expensive, but such professional jobs should be well paid. At this point it has actually become basically impossible for an Ivy League trained lawyer to pay his or her student loans if necessary to attend- imagine going to Harvard Law and breaking even as a highly paid lawyer. I don't hassle lawyers for their fees. anyway, if one doesn't like it, they don't have to sue or pay. That's yet another disincentive to appeal even if innocent.

This post has been edited by ZigZagged: 13 May 2008 - 01:18 PM

[smug]

and even if he wins, i don't think there'll be much interest in him as a rider.

[cclarke]

At this point it has actually become basically impossible for an Ivy League trained lawyer to pay his or her student loans if necessary to attend- imagine going to Harvard Law and breaking even as a highly paid lawyer. I don't hassle lawyers for their fees. anyway, if one doesn't like it, they don't have to sue or pay. That's yet another disincentive to appeal even if innocent.

Harvard law has a loan forgiveness program for people who choose to work in the public sector as well as free tuition for the third year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/18law...amp;oref=slogin

[smug]

Harvard law has a loan forgiveness program for people who choose to work in the public sector as well as free tuition for the third year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/18law...amp;oref=slogin

thanks for posting that. most schools still do not have such programs which makes going to law school a high-stakes gamble.

[ZigZagged]

Harvard law has a loan forgiveness program for people who choose to work in the public sector as well as free tuition for the third year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/18law...amp;oref=slogin

Glad to hear that. My school recently developed a grant program to do away with some of the student loans that weigh people down. I think it costs around $30,000 a year to go there now- as an undergraduate! Luckily I'm a bit older. A buddy of mine went to Emory in Atlanta and I remember being fairly flabbergasted at the mortgage-like bill he had to pay because he attended an excellent private university.

Anyway, I can't impugn a good lawyer for being expensive. They earn it even if people think they don't.

...What did Landis get for this astronomical sum? In the end he wasn't just defending himself against a doping charge. He attacked the entire international anti-doping structure, supposedly in the interest of all athletes.

It needed to be done. The structure is an ineffective joke.

The problem was that apparently not one other athlete joined his cause so he ended up financing his quest alone, with the help of the FFF....

Pro cyclists as a group have proven themselves over and over to be incapable of taking stands on their own behalf- those bogus pre-race sitdowns are meaningless. And I'm sure many didn't want to expose themeselves even if a valid principal was involved...

The losing side paying the cost is common legal practice in most arbitration, it is not unique to WADA/CAS.

millionaire athletes and their sucker fans/contributors keep WADA from doing their real work. They will keep pursuing their case to the end of the appeal, no matter how pathetic their case is, in order to maintain the charade of innocence.

The point of appealing is ideally to pursue a proper outcome. A cynic may not see it that way, but that's the case. A truly innocent athlete at this point would have to feel that the odds and costs are so terrible that appealing is worse than accepting the "cheater" label and taking the suspension. Throw the costs of the WADA on top of that, and it becomes suicidal to pursue it, as just as the cause may be.

I suppose your second point is based on a belief that appeals should not be part of the system at all, that the system is so infallible that it's offensive to protest innocence once an AAF has arisen. I find that a strange position to take if you're used to any semblance of a first world legal system.

[sundaymorning]

A truly innocent athlete at this point would have to feel that the odds and costs are so terrible that appealing is worse than accepting the "cheater" label and taking the suspension.

The problem with the Floyd farce is that he's not an innocent athlete and that he's been the ringmaster of the circus. I fail to see how the bulk of this has been about anything other than Floyd Landis. I'm willing to bet that most of those who don't support Floyd lump him together with Virenque, Hamilton, Jones, Clemens, Bonds.... Just another high profile athlete who doped, got caught and wound up making things worse for himself and everybody involved.

There are things I really don't like about the anti-doping fight, but they aren't going to be changed by Floyd Landis spending millions of dollars on his defense. Even if he wins his appeal and causes the LNDD to tighten the ship.

[frenchfry]

...
It needed to be done. The structure is an ineffective joke.
..

Landis has done nothing to change the anti-doping structure, largely because his entire defence was an ineffective joke. On top of that everyone now knows he was guilty of doping, so all of his posturing is just smoke in the wind. If anything, his actions hurt others who follow as certainly the anti-doping organisations will do all they can to keep from getting screwed again. The one positive of the public hearing was that now we have seen that it is a relatively fair process. Landis had his chance to play all his cards, and he turned out to be bluffing.

In the end Landis himself decided to throw his money away on high-priced lawyers, can't really blame the lawyers for that.

[ludwig]

The problem with the Floyd farce is that he's not an innocent athlete and that he's been the ringmaster of the circus. I fail to see how the bulk of this has been about anything other than Floyd Landis. I'm willing to bet that most of those who don't support Floyd lump him together with Virenque, Hamilton, Jones, Clemens, Bonds.... Just another high profile athlete who doped, got caught and wound up making things worse for himself and everybody involved.

I'd be much more likely to believe Landis if he had the support of pro cycling organizations when he claims to speak for fairness for all. Given the widespread practice of denial among elite cyclists, it's very difficult to believe a positive is false without more evidence.

I'm sure Landis did what he thought he had to do. But by taking omerta to a new level of absurdity, he has been his own worst enemy. I feel bad for him that his Tour victory was taken away but lets hope other riders will conclude that Landis' defense is exactly what not to do.

This post has been edited by ludwig: 14 May 2008 - 12:11 AM

[D-Queued]

...An open hearing was the way to go, even with the shenanigans that occurred. It was a briefly open window into how this ridiculous process works.

Legal stuff is expensive, no doubt. People tend to fall into the trap of thinking it's too expensive, but such professional jobs should be well paid. At this point it has actually become basically impossible for an Ivy League trained lawyer to pay his or her student loans if necessary to attend- imagine going to Harvard Law and breaking even as a highly paid lawyer. I don't hassle lawyers for their fees. anyway, if one doesn't like it, they don't have to sue or pay. That's yet another disincentive to appeal even if innocent.

Ridiculous? Floyd and his team were the ringmasters of ridiculous. In this case, W stands for in What on Earth were they thinking from Wiki Defense to Will... ? WWWhat FFFolly?

You are defending an Open Hearing, but not calling for Floyd to debrief us on the CAS action? Where is the honesty? No Press Release? Nothing?

No accountability to the FFF supporters?

Put me in the not surprised column. Pure BS.

What Floyd has proven for all to see is that fools and their money are soon parted. There is no higher cause here. That argument is as much a smokescreen as any of the inanities this debacle presented.

It would be one thing to rightfully challenge a system, any system. If the ACLU became interested in WADA, I would probably pay attention. In this case, though, the degree of recklessness should bear a fee. Floyd has already been hoisted by his own petard. His pleas to Congress about wasting taxpayer's money, may and should come home to roost. He wasted it. He should pay them back.

As for the cost of the degree -- tough. You can have the degree, but you still need to earn your keep. Going to a school like that does not somehow provide the right to earn, it provides an environment to learn. You have to apply that learning. I think I read somewhere that some of these students feel it can actually be a greater challenge to carry around the weight of these large degrees -- more is expected for the same dollar. And, more is expected from you by your peer group.

If the school charges more than its students can bear or admits all students with self-entitlement as their goal, tough. That, too, will get sorted out.

I suppose I am not surprised by your entitlement argument. When all is said and done, that appears to be the only thing Floyd is left with. Somehow, perhaps following the leadership of other examples, he feels he was just entitled to the Yellow Jersey independent of the means.

Dave.

Edit to add:

One thing I said from the very beginning was that the timing of Floyd's strategy wasn't taking into account the greater context. That being a context of O.P., Balco, and an independent agency, WADA, that replaced the UCI's capricious and self-conflicted program. One case that he has and is being compared to, and that he most certainly will be compared to, is that of Barry Bonds; someone who felt entitled to Hank Aarons record by any means.

Floyd should be happy if he gets off with only a suspension and an assignment of costs. Looks like things are still getting worse for Barry: Bonds charged with 14 counts of lying, obstruction.

This post has been edited by D-Queued: 14 May 2008 - 01:04 AM

[Kennf]

At this point it has actually become basically impossible for an Ivy League trained lawyer to pay his or her student loans if necessary to attend- imagine going to Harvard Law and breaking even as a highly paid lawyer. .

Depends on what the graduate wants to do. The top firms are paying starting lawyers (i.e. 24-25 year olds) $160,000 a year. Mid to upper level associates are making over $200,000. Paying back tuition is pretty doable with those numbers.

[swimyouidiot]

Depends on what the graduate wants to do. The top firms are paying starting lawyers (i.e. 24-25 year olds) $160,000 a year. Mid to upper level associates are making over $200,000. Paying back tuition is pretty doable with those numbers.

Just so you know, someone planning to be a pastor usually pays about $30,000 a year for three years for Divinity School/seminary, and very few scholarships are available (except at Duke and Princeton). Then they enter a profession in which they are likely to have a starting salary of $25,000 - $30,000. It's an ugly situation.

Peace

This post has been edited by swimyouidiot: 15 May 2008 - 03:39 PM